Tennessee bill lets residents petition for book bans over 'community standards'

Two years after Tennessee lawmakers passed the controversial Age Appropriate Materials Act — creating restrictions and enforcement of is accessible to children in public school libraries — an Oak Ridge legislator has proposed a bill that looks to create an easier path for residents to remove content they deem inappropriate from all public libraries.

Rep. John Ragan, R-Oak Ridge, filed HB 1661, legislation that seeks to set up a petition process for residents to remove content from anywhere accessible to minors in public or school libraries if the content is considered contrary to “contemporary community standards”— whether online or in person.

The bill lists a number of things considered contrary to “contemporary community standards,” such as “nudity,” “excess violence,” “sexual conduct,” and content that is “patently offensive” or of “a prurient interest,” among other limitations.

While most of these standards are already in current law regulating obscene content, Ragan said the creation of the petition process would help protect libraries from state enforcement by allowing residents to remove content from potential access by minors before a library runs afoul of the law.

“Given that this is an extension of the obscenity laws, this is actually to protect the library from being charged with criminal offenses,” Ragan said. “By erring on the side of removing the offensive content from minors’ access, they are protecting them from being prosecuted for violation of (Tennessee obscenity laws).”

Content in libraries found to go against “contemporary community standards” would be eligible to receive petitions from residents in the same district demanding immediate removal of the content from potential minors’ access.

More: 'Wild West' of book bans: New legislation, complaints lead to increasing debates

If filed, the petition would go to the districts’ respective election commission, where it would be validated and then sent to each library in the district, demanding that they immediately not display, distribute or make accessible to minors the content in question.

Petitions could only be validated if they are signed by legal, adult residents numbering at least 2% of the total number of legal voters who voted in the district’s last gubernatorial election.

Ragan’s bill does note that the Secretary of State shall establish a process for libraries to appeal any petitions via a contested case, and that libraires can appeal a removal to chancery court. The appeal, however, can only occur after the content has been removed.

If the appeal fails, the bill states libraries and equivalent governing boards cannot take action to circumvent or change the results of the petition.

But some library experts and First Amendment advocates worry that the bill could make censorship easier. Experts from the American Library Association say there are already laws in place protecting minors from inappropriate content.

“A decision regarding whether a book is inappropriate is usually done by the court of law, considering evidence presented by a prosecutor,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.

“This essentially hands that process over to any 2% of the number of people who voted in that jurisdiction. And in large cities, that would be a large number, but in small communities, it could be a very small number. Essentially, you're giving the 2% of the community the ability to decide what's available to both young readers and adult leaders in that community. Because if you read the law carefully, they can't make the book even potentially accessible to a minor.”

Caldwell-Stone referenced a court case from 2000 — Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas — that dealt with a similar petition process established by a city council to restrict access to books intended for children.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled the petition resolution process violated federal and state constitutional “rights to receive information.”

“The Resolution and the Book removals burden fully-protected speech on the basis of content and viewpoint and they therefore cannot stand,” the ruling read. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution, indisputably protect the right to receive information.”

Caldwell-Stone said limiting information is antithetical to the very fabric of a library’s mission.

“Certainly we live in a diverse society,” she said. “Different parents have different approaches to parenting, and what they would let their children read. The government should not be involved in the process of telling parents how to raise their children, or telling individuals or families what they can or can't read. Libraries should be there to serve the needs, information needs of everyone in the community, without fear or favor, and making a wide array of information available that serves those information needs.

“Information should not be restricted simply because someone doesn't like the viewpoints expressed by the book, or the fact that the book is offering information that they themselves don't agree with. Others definitely want to have access to it.”

The Senate sponsor for the bill is Sen. Joey Hensley, R-Hohenwald.

The USA Today Network - Tennessee's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.

Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@gannett.com, by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: First Amendment concerns raised over new Tennessee book banning bill