Bill advances to remove Iowa obscenity law exemptions for libraries, schools

DES MOINES — Republican lawmakers’ efforts to protect children from books and material they view as obscene would extend beyond schools to all public libraries under a proposal advanced Monday.

Iowa House File 274 would repeal a section of Iowa Code that states nothing in the state’s obscenity laws prohibits the use of appropriate materials for educational purposes in accredited schools, public libraries, or educational programs for minors.

The Iowa Code section also does not prohibit the attendance of minors at an exhibition or display of art works or the use of any materials in any public library.

Iowa Code defines obscenity as: “any material depicting or describing the genitals, sex acts, masturbation, excretory functions or sadomasochistic abuse which the average person, taking the material as a whole and applying contemporary community standards with respect to what is suitable material for minors, would find appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive; and the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, scientific, political or artistic value.”

Supporters of the legislation argued the exemptions allow minors access to inappropriate, sexually explicit material at public libraries, and that the bill is needed to restrict children’s exposure to obscene content.

By repealing the obscenity exemptions, they argued Iowans can ensure that educational and public spaces remain safe and appropriate for all students.

Opponents, however, contend Iowa law already codifies and adheres to the legal test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973) for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity.

Keenan Crow, with LGBTQ advocacy group One Iowa who uses they/them pronouns, mentioned other legislation, SF 116, that would allow parents private cause of action to sue institutions to determine whether or not something is obscene. Combined, Crow warned legislators that doing so would create “massive” legal liability risk for public institutions — not because of actual obscenity, but because of lawsuits and other calculated legal actions that discourage public participation that are unlikely to succeed.

“There are no other states that currently have this combination of laws. And I will also note that 44 other states currently have the exemption that this bill is seeking to remove,” Crow said. “The reason is that these frivolous lawsuits will happen at taxpayer expense for no other reason than to intimidate librarians and educators.

“Strong laws about obscenity are necessary and important in our society, and they do a great job of both protecting access to reading and removing truly objectionable, meritless material,” they said.

Crow noted such obscenity laws have been in place for decades.

“I would challenge anyone in this room to come up with a single book in their local library or school that meets the Miller test (for obscenity); not that you disagree with it,” Crow said, who was then interrupted by a woman who dumped a stack of books in front of them on the committee room table.

Subcommittee chair Rep. Helena Hayes, R-New Sharon, reminded attendees to maintain a level of decorum and instructed the woman to remove the books.

“Not that you find it objectionable, not that you disagree with it, but it meets the constitutional test” of what constitutes obscenity, Crow continued. “ … I believe this bill and several others moving in the legislature right now are just going to be a driver of higher insurance costs and frivolous lawsuits.”

Bill supporter: Library association is a ‘Marxist, godless group’

Supporters of the bill said the measure was necessary because of material in libraries available for minors that contain sexually explicit content, or that focus on LGBTQ identities and experiences.

Evelyn Nikkel with the PELLA PAC, a Pella-based group lobbying to pass laws to protect children from “propaganda promoted by Marxist and atheist bureaucracies,” according to the group’s website, said the bill is need to prevent public libraries and educational programs from exploiting “a loophole” in Iowa law to allows their “damnable excuse for unfiltered and unrestricted access for minors to all adult content on shelves and online.”

A group of parents led an effort in 2022 to remove “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, a graphic novel that includes nudity and depictions of sexual activities, from the Pella Public Library.

Nikkel asserted librarians and library boards have exhibited a “total disregard” of Iowa’s obscenity laws to “make sure that they keep this filth continually in front of our children,” and criticized the Iowa Library Association for adhering to standards set by the American Library Association. She called the latter a “Marxist godless group, hell bent on flooding our minors with sexually explicit graphic novels, violent R-rated streaming videos, adult audio books and LGBTQ+ deviant sexual behaviors.”

“Businesses can’t merchandise this smut, but our taxpayer-funded public libraries intersperse it on their shelves to ambush children as young as five years old, especially targeting young people,” she said.

Libraries exist to support free inquiry, not dictate what individuals or families can read, and Iowa law already provides a clear process for addressing concerns about materials, a public librarian told lawmakers.

The Iowa Library Association, in a statement to The Gazette, said legal obscenity can only be determined by a court of law, not individual community members, library workers, or other officials.

Current exemptions, the association states, protect library workers when materials serve an educational purpose, which adheres to the Miller Test, or when an individual is using the library’s materials for their own purposes. Removing those protections will create a chilling effect “that leads to over-restriction of legal content, and censorship.”

“This bill is a solution in search of a problem, as libraries are not collecting and making available materials which are legally determined to be obscene,” the association said. “The courts have regularly rejected attempts to label library materials as obscene according to the long-accepted legal standards.”

Democratic lawmaker: ‘Libraries are voluntary inquiry’

Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny, questioned whether anyone in the room had been “irreparably harmed by a book or a piece of artwork,” and linked the bill to practices in Nazi Germany of removing banned books from open shelves, available to the public, to special collections “to keep them out of the hands of ordinary people.”

  Buy Photo

Matson argued parents can exercise control over whether they bring their children to the public library if they are concerned about their access to certain books.

“If you want to hover over your children in a public library, please be my guest,” she said. “But libraries are voluntary inquiry. I cannot tell you how many times I said that in the last two years, and apparently I don’t have to be done with it — Libraries are voluntary inquiry.”

Hayes and Rep. Samantha Fett, R-Carlisle, signed off on advancing the bill to the full House Education Committee for further consideration.

  Buy Photo

Hayes and other advocates for the legislation disagreed with calling the bill a “book ban,” as they could still be purchased, linking it to criticisms of a 2023 Iowa law being challenged in federal court requiring books with descriptions or depictions of a sex act be removed from public school libraries.

“Should public institutions and libraries be exempt from the obscenity clause, the obscenity code in Iowa language?” Hayes asked. “… I think that's a fair question to ask that's not fear-based. And I certainly don't think it's a book ban. I know that’s an easy out for anybody who wants to do anything about age-appropriateness or talking about books or setting any boundaries whatsoever, is automatically seen to be a book ban.”

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com