Georgia Bill Could Criminalize Librarians Over Book Selections

Georgia's Senate Bill 74 (SB 74) has sparked significant debate regarding its potential impact on library operations and book accessibility. The bill, which passed the Senate with a 6-5 vote along party lines, seeks to amend existing obscenity laws that could expose librarians to criminal charges for providing minors access to certain materials deemed harmful. Proponents argue that the bill is not a ban but rather a measure to ensure that specific books are relocated to age-restricted sections of libraries.

The legislation targets materials that include depictions of sexual conduct, as defined by state law, which encompasses acts such as masturbation and sexual intercourse. Supporters, including Rep. Rob Leverett, R-Elberton, assert that the bill's intent is to protect minors rather than to impose censorship. Leverett emphasized, "That's a great difference," in response to concerns that the bill would lead to outright bans on certain books.

Conversely, critics, including Rep. Shea Roberts, D-Atlanta, argue that the bill could effectively lead to censorship by instilling fear among library boards about potential prosecution. They contend that the vague definitions of harmful material could result in the removal of books that depict benign themes, such as two boys holding hands. Rep. Esther Panitch, D-Sandy Springs, warned that the legislation could transform library boards into "censorship boards," where the fear of prosecution would outweigh the commitment to uphold diverse literature.

Supporters of SB 74, including conservative and religious advocates, have long sought to revoke the librarian exemption from the 1980s obscenity law. They argue that parents should have the authority to determine when their children are exposed to sensitive topics. Rep. Charlice Byrd, R-Woodstock, articulated this viewpoint, stating, "A parent should decide when to expose their child to such information."

In contrast, opponents of the bill express concern that it could lead to a chilling effect on library collections. They fear that the threat of criminal charges could result in librarians erring on the side of caution, ultimately limiting access to a broader range of literature.

Following its passage in the Senate, SB 74 is set to be reviewed by the House Rules Committee, which will determine whether to advance the bill for a full House vote. If the House approves the amended version, the Senate will need to concur before the bill can be sent to Governor Brian Kemp for final approval.

• “If the librarian follows what the governing board says, then that's it, the end,” — Rep. Soo Hong, R-Lawrenceville

• “When the choice is between keeping a challenged book on the shelf or exposing your libraries to prosecution, the book will lose every time,” — Rep. Esther Panitch, D-Sandy Springs

• “Is it the librarian's responsibility to teach my children what a vagina and a penis is?” — Rep. Charlice Byrd, R-Woodstock

While supporters of SB 74 maintain that the bill does not constitute a ban, critics argue that its implications could lead to significant censorship in libraries. The debate continues over the definitions of harmful material and the potential consequences for librarians who may face criminal charges. The outcome of the legislative process will be closely monitored by both advocates and opponents of the bill.