\n
![](\"https:\/\/s2982.pcdn.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/site-book-censorship-image.jpg.optimal.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She’s the editor\/author of (DON’T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor\/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen<\/a>.<\/p>\n View All posts by Kelly Jensen<\/a><\/p>\n \t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n More people are tuned in to what\u2019s happening in public libraries and public schools than ever before. This is a good thing and it is also long overdue. Many have been shouting about this from the rooftops and from the streets for years.<\/p>\n This tuning in means that the continuing onslaught of awful library bills being proposed across various U.S. states is getting more attention. Again, a great and beyond necessary thing. But with the kind of reception and blasting that librarian criminalization bills are seeing on social media and in the broader media, it\u2019s worth noting that none of these bills are new. Are they connected to what was laid out in Project 2025? Absolutely. However, these bills began long before <\/em>Project 2025 was spelled out because we, as Americans, have been living the Project 2025 playbook<\/a> since at least 2021.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The common theme of the legislation dubbed \u201clibrarian criminalization bills\u201d is that they are all bills which would remove obscenity protections against library workers. Obscenity protections are usually part of state legal codes that ensure those people working in educational institutions like libraries, schools, and museums are able to provide a wide breadth of material to serve their constituents. Those protections intend to curtail frivolous lawsuits against people working in places where materials of all kinds might be present.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Here\u2019s the thing: there is not obscenity in these institutions. Obscenity is defined by the three-part Miller Test:<\/p>\n Literary Activism Newsletter<\/p>\n \nNews you can use plus tips and tools for the fight against censorship and other bookish activism!\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Key phrase repeated twice in the Miller Test is \u201cas a whole.\u201d <\/p>\n Obscenity exemptions are in place not as an admittance of inappropriate material. They\u2019re there to protect the freedoms of expression allowed in these public institutions. They\u2019re there to ensure that materials provided are true and accurate \u2014 some people might not like that the library has books about sex, sexuality, and puberty, but they\u2019re allowed to be there and available to people who would like to read them.<\/p>\n Librarian criminalization bills seek to remove these obscenity exemptions for library workers and open up the flood doors to accusations of library-supported and distributed obscene materials. Librarian criminalization bills want to make it open season on libraries, much like we\u2019re seeing in Idaho<\/a>, where any parent who doesn\u2019t like something in their public library can simply sue the library. <\/p>\n At this point, we know for a fact obscenity is defined in whatever way best serves those who are itching to cry victim. This includes books by or about people of color and\/or books by or about queer people. It also includes wide swaths of books about disability, about puberty, about gender and sexuality, and about any topic that could be shoved under the new administration\u2019s definition of \u201cDEI\u201d \u2014 literally anything not about straight, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, wealthy, white Christian men. They eradicate any voices outside that narrow scope through book bans; they erase anyone helping to provide access to those materials by criminalizing them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n There are other bills that would criminalize librarians. We\u2019ve seen this in Louisiana, for example, which attempted to criminalize librarians by targeting their affiliation with the largest professional organization for library workers<\/a>, the American Library Association. This bill did not pass. Louisiana\u2019s bill targeted librarians, whereas Iowa\u2019s 2025 deprofessionalization bill proposal<\/a> targeted libraries (noting, of course, that vagueness in this bill would open the door to applying the law to individual library workers).<\/p>\n For the sake of this piece and for the purposes of understanding the proliferation of a specific type of librarian criminalization bill, the focus is on changing obscenity protections for library workers. <\/p>\n Some of the groundwork for these bills was set in 2021 as we saw a spate of bills specifically targeting \u201cobscene\u201d or \u201cinappropriate\u201d materials in public and public school libraries. Those bills were built upon rhetoric spewed by far-right groups who were in the grips of beginning their campaigns of book banning. It was 2021 when our current era of book banning really took off, starting with complaints from No Left Turn in Education in spring 2021 and exploding in the fall, as Moms for Liberty\u2019s roots were growing. The challenges to books came following the same groups\u2019 calls for \u201creopening the schools\u201d after COVID \u2014 schools were never closed but had gone virtual \u2014\u00a0to unmask the kids and anti-vaccine campaigns.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The 2022 legislative session brought several librarian criminalization bills. Among the states that brought bills were Idaho, which failed at the time; Pennsylvania, which died in committee; and Missouri, where this provision of a bill that passed was struck and, thus, not applicable. Indiana also proposed two librarian criminalization bills, both of which failed.<\/p>\n More states attempted such bills in 2023. Among them were Indiana, which failed; two bills that failed in Kansas; Tennessee, which failed; several bills in Texas that all failed; and multiple bills in West Virginia, which all failed. <\/p>\n Despite consistently failing, bills targeting librarians with criminalization abounded in 2024. You\u2019ll notice many states that failed to have such bills progress previously gave them another shot. Again, all of these bills are based on manufactured narratives about what is inside libraries, and their purpose is to go one step beyond banning the books. They\u2019re there with the intention to destabilize and deprofessionalize the work of librarians, making for an easy way to defund them. That\u2019s not to say that the people behind these bills don\u2019t want libraries to exist. They do. They just want them to be privatized, for-profit institutions catering only to a specific demographic of people \u2014 not the whole of a community, which is the explicit purpose of democratic institutions like libraries.<\/p>\n 2024 bills came from Alabama, which failed to progress; Indiana, which failed; Kansas, which failed; Louisiana, which failed; Minnesota, which died in committee; Missouri, which died in committee; Nebraska, which died in committee; Tennessee, which failed; Virginia, which died; West Virginia, which died; Wisconsin, which failed to pass; and Wyoming, which died. <\/p>\n Idaho\u2019s librarian criminalization bill from 2024 passed, but the bill did not change the criminal code in the state. The bill allows for parents to challenge books and sue if the materials are not moved or removed to their preference, but this is at the library, rather than individual, level. That said, it\u2019s a bill intended to create a chilling effect statewide, encouraging library workers to silent\/quiet censorship, rather than providing service as fully as possible to meet the needs of the entire <\/em>community. So while it\u2019s still a criminalization bill \u2014\u00a0i.e., it opens up lawsuits from the public and potential sanctions from the judicial system \u2014\u00a0it is different than those noted above.<\/p>\n Ultimately, whether or not these bills fail does not matter to their sponsors. They start to sow seeds of distrust in public institutions like libraries and school while encouraging people to listen to the politicians who are there to \u201ccare about the kids.\u201d These bills encourage more similar bills both within the states where they didn\u2019t pass, as well as in other states. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The 2025 response to new bills has been much louder and more widespread than before, and it\u2019s also been the year we\u2019ve seen such bills be rushed through the system at breakneck speed. In Iowa, Helene Hayes put her target on public libraries right away, floating several<\/a> anti-public library bills<\/a> all built upon the same lies about \u201cobscene material\u201d that no one can seem to actually give examples of (because such things do not exist). Her librarian criminalization bill<\/a> was proposed on February 10 and advanced through committee just days later, making it crystal clear she and her cronies knew it would be a deeply unpopular bill with Iowa citizens. The same day it passed out of committee, a similar Senate bill<\/a> was then pumped through the system.<\/p>\n That said, it is noteworthy that the response to Iowa\u2019s bill was louder and more widespread than when such bills were in serious contention in Louisiana and Alabama just one year earlier. Will those states see similar pushback this year? It\u2019s hard to say, but it is important to note that years of anti-southern state sentiments, especially among \u201cgood\u201d \u201cpro-library\u201d folks outside of the south, has only further disenfranchised and harmed the hardworking folks on the ground who\u2019ve been not only doing the work since day one but who have been shouting loudly for help.<\/p>\n As we progress through the 2025 state legislative sessions, it\u2019s your job to reach out to your representatives against bills like these. Provide them information about how libraries are well-respected, how they are institutions beloved and trusted by parents, and that they are not in any capacity distributing \u201cobscene\u201d material. Most people do not agree with book bans <\/em>and most people want their libraries to survive<\/em>. Find data and information to support your argument linked throughout this guide on how to be proactive against censorship<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The following states have drafted and\/or advanced librarian criminalization bills so far this year. This information is current as of March 10, 2025. You can track updates and further disruptive and dangerous bills through EveryLibrary\u2019s bill tracker. Their ongoing updates about legislation impacting libraries were helpful for developing this timeline, and they have been on the front lines of protecting the future of libraries before \u2014\u00a0and especially during \u2014\u00a0this era of ongoing attacks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n North Dakota is also floating legislation that would mirror much of Idaho\u2019s<\/a> in allowing lawsuits against schools which do not comply with their updated \u201cobscene materials\u201d definition. Texas is doing similarly<\/a> and could hit libraries with up to $10,000 in fines for violating their new rules. <\/p>\n Level up your reading life while you support an independent media resource! Become an All Access member and explore our full library of exclusive bonus content and community features. Sign up now for only $6\/month!<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n This week here on Book Riot: Moms For Liberty is shutting down their BookLooks review website \u2014 but it\u2019s not cause for celebration yet<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n\nWhat Are Librarian Criminalization Bills?<\/h3>\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n\nA Recent History of Librarian Criminalization Bills<\/h3>\n
\n\nThe Lingering Effects<\/h3>\n
\n\nWhat\u2019s On The Docket for 2025<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nBook Censorship News: March 14, 2025<\/h3>\n
\n