Late last week, a group of schools, libraries, churches, and parents filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging our Children’s School and Library Protection Act (H710).
Quite frankly, those responsible for filing the lawsuit should be embarrassed—especially because most of the arguments in the lawsuit are misleading and easily refuted.
We’re confident that these baseless arguments will be tossed by the courts. But even more importantly, our Children’s School and Library Protection Act currently remains in effect, continuing to protect children from pornographic library materials as this court challenge plays out.
In the meantime, here are five of the more far-fetched claims made by the plaintiffs and their attorneys:
1. The lawsuit claims that the Children’s School and Library Protection Act violates the First Amendment right to freely access information.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and that states have a compelling interest in protecting children from library pornography.
Our new law isn’t a book ban—in fact, libraries can continue offering pornography to their adult patrons. Instead, the law simply ensures that schools and libraries take reasonable steps to protect minors from obscene or harmful pornographic material.
2. The lawsuit takes issue with longstanding statutory definitions for “harmful to minors,” “sexual conduct,” and “materials.”
According to the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the definitions for “harmful to minors,” “sexual conduct,” and “materials” utilized by the Children’s School and Library Protection Act are unconstitutionally vague.
But here’s the thing… These definitions have existed in Idaho code since at least 1976, long before the Children’s School and Library Protection Act became law. And during those five decades, not one single person has argued that these definitions are unconstitutionally vague.
3. The lawsuit argues that the “harmful to minors” definition is subjective and allows easily offended parents to dictate which books a library makes available to the community.
If you listened to the plaintiffs and their attorneys, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Children’s School and Library Protection Act does not clearly define what “harmful to minors” means.
However, that’s simply not true. The definition for “harmful to minors” codifies the decades-old modified Miller test, which was developed by federal courts to determine whether a particular work constitutes obscenity for children.
Again, this definition predates the Children’s School and Library Protection Act, having existed in Idaho code for more than 50 years without causing any confusion.
4. The lawsuit claims that books with a same-sex couple holding hands or kissing fall under the scope of the Children’s School and Library Protection Act.
Stretching credulity, the lawsuit insinuates that any book containing even a mere mention of homosexuality constitutes obscenity under our Children’s School and Library Protection Act!
Here’s the truth: Books with homosexual acts would constitute obscenity only if they also (1) appeal to the prurient interest of minors, and (2) lack real literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
What’s the bottom line? Put simply, books with homosexual romances will be affected only if they’re pornographic—just like books featuring straight couples.
5. The lawsuit claims that the Children’s School and Library Protection Act provides for a bounty against libraries
The plaintiffs also portray that the Children’s School and Library Protection Act provides a “cash reward” that “incentivizes” parents to sue their local libraries. But it’s false and misleading to characterize civil damages as a “cash reward.”
The American legal system has traditionally recognized that victims of unlawful acts deserve compensation for the harm they suffered. Civil causes of action simply provide victims with the legal pathway to recover those damages.
Idaho law provides a nearly innumerable amount of civil causes of action on a range of subjects. For example, families of victims killed by drunk car drivers can sue for the damages they suffered as a result of wrongful death. Similarly, victims of medical malpractice can sue for the damages they suffered as a result of their physician’s negligence.
State law even allows parents of children exposed to pornography on through adult websites to sue if the website failed to properly employ age-verification methods for their users.
The same principle applies with the Children’s School and Library Protection Act, which enables parents to sue for damages associated with their child’s exposure to library pornography. And there’s good evidence showing that porn exacts devastating consequences on young children, as the Idaho Legislature has already recognized.
In short, this isn’t a bounty—it’s holding libraries accountable by providing compensation to children for the harm they’ve suffered.
Want to learn more about the Children’s School and Library Protection Act?
Click here to read our CSLPA Fact Check and our report on library pornography in Idaho so YOU are prepared to respond to the misinformation coming from leftist media.
One Response
Just so the public is aware, this Protection Act is needed more than you may realize. Last September in tiny Garden Valley, ID, the Library Director and the President of the Library Board tossed out many community members’ Material Reconsideration Forms that were filled out regarding nine obscene books currently in circulation in our public library. These forms are lengthy (7 pages per book title) but required to get these books off the shelves. The Director proudly tossed many of them in the trash because of minor address mistakes on the forms (and the like) without telling the patrons that she had done this or giving them the opportunity to correct the address mistakes before the meeting that was being held to address these books. Then, at the meeting, the patrons were silenced because they “had not filled out the proper forms.” These are regular folks who had no idea they wold be lied to and deceived in such a way by their small town library volunteers! It was disgusting and disheartening. They hired a fancy lawyer from somewhere to help draft a denial letter (after the meeting, they claimed one patron HAD filled out the forms properly and so his/her forms were used to then make a decision in private to NOT remove any of the obscene books) and then labeled the folks who had shown up o the meeting to speak up “those who wish to censor” in the official meeting minutes, if you can believe it. A few brave folks had to meet with the Director privately and then attend another board meeting pleading our case just to get them to admit we were not wishing to ‘censor’ anything and to please remove the incendiary (slanderous) label from the public meeting minutes. These are the dirty tricks that were played that have made this type of Protection Act necessary so regular American parents have a right to have adult books put in an adult section in the library. Nobody concerned with the obscenity being written for and promoted to minor children has ever mentioned one thing about wanting any “bounty” against a librarian. Please! We are just expecting that they do their job, follow the law and not lie and connive behind our backs.