By Alander Rocha | MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday passed a bill that could lead to the arrest of librarians if a person accuses them of distributing obscene or harmful materials to minors or exposes them to people dressed in revealing clothing.
HB 385, sponsored by Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Indian Springs, also expands the term “sexual conduct” in state law to include conduct that “knowingly exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd and lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities in K-12 public schools, public libraries, and other public places where minors are expected and are known to be present without parental consent.”
“The thing that I would like to point out is, this is an effort to protect children,” Mooney said. “It is not a Democrat bill. It’s not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children.”
The bill passed 72-28 along party line votes. A message seeking comment was left with the Alabama Library Association.
The legislation comes amid right-wing attacks on the content and leadership of libraries in Alabama and around the country, mostly around books with LGBTQ+ characters or themes. Mooney introduced a similar bill last year that explicitly banned drag show performances where children were present. The bill did not become law.
The bill as filed could have subjected librarians to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, on a second or subsequent violation. A first offense would have been a misdemeanor, with a fine up to $10,000 and county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than one year.
Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, offered an substitute to the bill he said was to “tighten up” the original bill and downgraded the criminal charges to a Class C misdemeanor, up to three months in jail or a $500 fine, for the first offense; a second offense would warrant a Class B misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in jail; and a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, for the third and subsequent offense.
The substitute also provided notice requirements for those accused of misdemeanor, allowing up to seven days for materials to be removed. It also replaced the term “material” for “conduct” in the “sexual conduct” definition. The bill previously defined sexual conduct as any “sexual or gender oriented material that knowingly exposes minors.”
“We wanted to make sure that people were protected, our librarians were protected, that our K through 12 officials were protected, and that’s what we’ve tried to do in the sub, is strengthen that protection,” Faulkner said.
Democrats, however, said that the changes actually made it easier to subject librarians to criminal prosecution. Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, said that lawmakers need to have “an actual class on what criminal law does, what intent is and the process.”
By reducing the felony charges to misdemeanors, England said, the bill would make it easier for librarians to be arrested via a warrant. A warrant clerk can sign a warrant “on the spot right there” without proper due process.
“In a situation where you have to have a warrant — that’s for felonies — it actually has to be investigated,” England said.
He said that the bill only requires district attorneys get notice, and there is no standard for what the notice is supposed to say, or requirement that the district attorney acknowledge the notice.
“This basically gives one person the ability to have a librarian arrested, as long as they can convince a warrant clerk that they’ve given notice and material is obscene. Does that make you comfortable?” England asked.
Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, said he was concerned that people will abuse the definitions provided in the bill and asked if there would be an appeals process in case a person is harassed based on the bill’s language.
“I’m talking about people abusing this definition that we have in here in order to target and harass people, who might be dressed up for a Halloween costume, or dressed up, like I said, in just the warmer months, wearing a sundress,” Rafferty said.
Faulkner maintained that there would still be seven days for the person to remove or change material or conduct in question. Rafferty questioned whether it is a good idea to bring people into the criminal justice system to resolve civil matters.
“I do still have some serious problems with this because I feel like this is a violation of First Amendment, I feel like is easily going to be abused, and we will be dealing with unintended consequences of it,” Rafferty said.
Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, said the bill was needed because “we woke up one day and things changed.”
Garrett cited the American Library Association adopting a user privacy policy stating children and young adults have the “right to receive information through the library in print, sound, images, data, social media, online applications, games, technologies, programming, and other formats.”
“I haven’t talked to anybody and anybody who believes that, but that was the national policy, and that began to drive a lot of things that just popped up that people didn’t understand. I don’t think the local libraries necessarily embraced that, but it just happens,” Garrett said.
Rep. A.J. McCampbell, D-Linden, said that while they may not want children to be exposed to the material in question, the “real world is full of a whole lot of stuff that we don’t want our children exposed to.” He said that he was exposed to a lot growing up, and the things he learned that was “lewd and not right” were not learned in a library.
“When we are trying to dictate by precluding what a person may learn about, then we limit their ability to operate in a society they actually live in,” McCampbell said.
Read Freely Alabama, an volunteer group opposing censorship in local libraries, said in a statement that even with the changes, the bill still “criminalizes normal library practices and subverts already established reconsideration procedures,” even after changes. The group said the bill would allow anyone to make a claim based on subjective personal beliefs.
“This would open librarians and their staff in our most vulnerable libraries to criminal prosecution for books housed in the adult section, giving them 7 days to ban these books from their libraries or be charged,” the statement read.
Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, said in a statement that despite the changes, librarians could still be penalized or arrested by “prosecutors eager to follow the demands of Alabama Republican Chair John Wahl, an Alabama Public Library Service Board member, who’s willing to jail librarians for having books he considers unacceptable.”
“This bill is government overreach, robs parents of their rights, and would have a chilling effect on free speech by potentially incarcerating librarians because particular books are available, including even the Bible,” Scott wrote.
The bill moves to the Senate for consideration.
******************************************************************************************
Alander Rocha is a journalist based in Montgomery, and he reports on government, policy and healthcare. He previously worked for KFF Health News and the Red & Black, Georgia’s student newspaper. He is a Tulane and Georgia alumnus with a two-year stint in the U.S. Peace Corps.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by the Alabama Reflector and is republished with permission.
The Alabama Reflector is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to covering state government and politics in the state of Alabama. Through daily coverage and investigative journalism, The Reflector covers decision makers in Montgomery; the issues affecting Alabamians, and potential ways to move our state forward.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
