A bill introduced in the North Dakota House of Representatives would not only ban books it deems inappropriate from public libraries—it would also allow prosecutors to charge anyone not complying with the law with a Class B misdemeanor.
That would mean the possibility of up to 30 days imprisonment and a $1,500 fine for any librarians who do not comply with the law.
North Dakota's HB 1205 has a section titled "Public libraries prohibited from maintaining or promoting certain books" which defines what the lawmakers who introduced the bill consider "explicit sexual material."
Their definition is probably quite different from what most people would include under their idea of "sexually explicit."
It includes the things one might expect, like sexual activities and human genitals, but also includes completely not obscene topics like sex-based classifications, sexual identity and gender identity.
\u201cLegacy media institutions have run countless articles concern trolling about cancel culture. Now, they are completely silent when states are implementing book bans that completely erase the mention of LGBTQ people. It's absurd.\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1673653116
While the bill as-written only applies to visual representations of the banned subjects, it is unknown whether it would be enforced only on books containing images if it were to become law.
There was a public hearing for HB 1205 held on Tuesday, January 17. The hearing ended without a vote either for or against by the North Dakota House Judiciary Committee.
As of time of writing, the committee had not made a recommendation on the bill.
You can watch the full hearing here.
Many people were horrified by the bill's potential repercussions.
\u201cI still don\u2019t think most people realize the extent of the horror that\u2019s unfolding in so many states right now. In North Dakota, recently introduced HB 1205 would ban from public libraries ALL books that include ANY depiction of gay or trans humans. This is monstrously evil.\u201d— \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08 (@\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08) 1673743505
\u201c@Esqueer_ It was just a matter of time. And sin e the library-haters are well-funded, it's happening fast. I'm really afraid the public libraries we've assumed would always be there for us are going to be destroyed.\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1673653116
\u201c14 years later, the GOP is even more extreme and hateful. Their members are pushing bills to ban gender transition care (HB1301) and document changes (SB2199), censor libraries (HB1205), and create a right to misgender people in workplaces, government, and schooling (SB2231).\u201d— Jed Hanson (@Jed Hanson) 1673827817
\u201c@TasslynM @PhilBildner @FTLAdvocates I'm most worried about this influencing publishers to accept fewer trans stories - and to demand our stories be more sanitized\u201d— \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08 (@\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08) 1673743505
Several people pointed out the major flaws in the proposed legislation.
\u201c@activist_angel @PhilBildner Honestly, it's hilarious to me how often people propose book bans of any kind that would have to include the Bible. There's violence and sex and all sorts of things in that book that these bans are trying to censor.\u201d— \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08 (@\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08) 1673743505
\u201c@PhilBildner @PENamerica It is literally a ban on any pictures of human beings....\u201d— \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08 (@\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08) 1673743505
\u201c@Esqueer_ The fact the bill only specified depictions of "postpubertal" (which I assume means after puberty, because spell check says it isn't a word) genitals being prohibited has some concerning implications.\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1673653116
\u201c@PhilBildner @jasonsanford Taken literally, it also bans depictions of any gendering or sexuality in characters. So: No more books.\u201d— \ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08 (@\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08Phil Bildner\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08) 1673743505
\u201c@JHGRedekop @Esqueer_ North Dakota is banning public libraries from containing books\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1673653116
\u201c@ryan_san @Esqueer_ Do you expect people who support this to EVER try to enforce it in good faith?\u201d— Alejandra Caraballo (@Alejandra Caraballo) 1673653116
According to the American Library Association (ALA) public libraries share a common mission to "provide free, equal, and equitable access to information for all people of the community that the library serves."
Unrestricted access to information and anti-censorship are cornerstones of library ethics.
The point of bills like HB 1205 are often more about making the fear of potential repercussions causing people to comply. Just because the law doesn't explicitly ban books that describe the banned subjects—rather than depicting them visually—doesn't mean someone won't use the law as precedent to try to go after a library anyway.
If HB 1205 becomes law, public librarians will have to weigh their professional ethics against the possibility of imprisonment.
@thepassingtramp/X
@BryceWayne10s/X
@PressSec/X