Commonwealth Policy Center

Members of the Daviess County Public Library board are dragging their feet when it comes to protecting minors from sexually explicit books located in the children’s section of the library. Some board members believe that such a move would constitute censorship and a violation of constitutional rights, exposing the Library to a lawsuit. So what’s going on?

The American Library Association (ALA) notoriously stokes such fear, predicting costly legal challenges to any removal of children’s books by a library board. Protecting children from obscene material shouldn’t be controversial. It’s common sense. However, the ALA’s legal claims are questionable at best and dangerously wrong at worst, leaving our children vulnerable in the meantime.

Kentucky law (KRS 531) prohibits the distribution of obscene material to minors. The exception is when such content has “a bona fide scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification” (KRS 531.070). This policy protects impressionable children whose minds aren’t fully developed nor have a category for “adult material.” It has long been considered a reasonable and necessary policy to protect children from material which could cause them mental or emotional damage.

The idea of “age appropriateness” is long established and accepted. But the ALA and their allies, indifferent to the moral and psychological health of children, find a loophole in KRS 531.070 in “educational” justification. There may truly be exceptions in a few cases, but as a societal principle, we recognize the fragility of childhood and hence the need to protect kids with special laws. Mandatory seatbelts for toddlers; curfews for minors; no entry into bars or movie theaters featuring R-rated movies. Nobody purports that it’s a good idea for nine year olds to drink beer or smoke. Any books in the children’s section promoting this would certainly be unwelcome. So how is it any different to make available obscene books in Daviess County Public Library children’s section?

Consider a few. It Feels Good To Be Yourself introduces kids to the concept of gender identity, asserting that some people are neither male nor female while others change their gender. The books called I am Jazz! and George tell the story of children who decided to transition without considering the physical harm caused by transition. Darius the Great Deserves Better by Adib Khorram features detailed descriptions of masturbation and sexual contact between two boys. Red Hood by Elana K. Arnold describes sexual encounters in graphic detail. Sold by Patricia McCormick is about a 13 year old girl sold into sex slavery, and it graphically describes her rapes. How is any of this appropriate for minors?

Obscene content which encourages sexual expression at a young age isn’t protected under Kentucky law. Nor does such content fall under scientific or educational justifications. Pornographic and obscene content elicits a sexual response and promotes what many believe are immoral sexual choices. The ALA should be reminded that just because there may be a loophole and potential gray area in the law, doesn’t mean there’s not a night and day difference between appropriate biological education and sexual excitement leading to immoral behaviors and practices.

Yet, the ALA continues to raise the specter of lawsuits. They claim that the legal question is simple: the Daviess County Library Board would be sued for violating the First Amendment. Actually, the legal question is far more complicated, and there is not a clear precedent that courts must follow, as some similar cases are currently on appeal. Nonetheless, there are signs that courts may rule that library boards have the authority to remove books as they see fit.

Currently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is deliberating on Little v. Llano County. The Llano County, Texas Library Board, which in a similar situation to Daviess County, decided to remove 17 obscene children’s books from the library. The argument in favor of the County’s Board convincingly addresses objections. 

The 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. American Library Assn., Inc. affirmed the right of public libraries to select books based on their content. This inevitably involves picking and choosing what they believe is in accord with the community’s values, and consistent with the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

It’s inaccurate to say that the First Amendment applies to speech by a government entity like the library board. The library board is not required to “say” anything or include certain books. It is allowed to “say” what it wishes. The library board shouldn’t cave to pressure by a national left-wing entity whose values are wildly inconsistent with Daviess Countians.

In the end, the Daviess County Library Board members are gatekeepers who have a duty to use their best judgement to stock the public library children’s section with edifying books. It’s an important responsibility, even if unpopular with some. Kids need a safe place where they can learn and explore. That’s what the children’s section in the local library should be.