Republicans Seek to Repeal Library Freedom

Editor’s Note: House File 274 passed out of subcommittee on Monday, Feb. 17, 2-1.

A bill in the Iowa legislature seeks to repeal Section 728.7 of Iowa Code. This section provides a long-standing obscenity exception for libraries and educational institutions. According to the bill, nothing in code prohibits the use of appropriate material for educational purposes in any accredited school, any public library, or in any educational program in which a minor is participating. It further provides that code 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. People are worried that children are being exposed to obscenities enough in public spaces to change how public institutions operate. This bill should be cause for concern for anyone who uses a public library.

I looked through our local library’s policy statements and found this:

Including materials in the collection does not constitute endorsement of their contents. The Library recognizes that any given item may offend some patrons, but, because the Library follows accepted principles of intellectual freedom, it will not remove specific titles solely because individuals or groups may find them objectionable. (Solon Public Library website, October 2022).

The language regarding children and censorship more directly addresses the concern:

Censorship is a purely individual matter. While an individual or group is free to reject material, no library staff person shall restrict access to the rest of the community. Selection of materials is not restricted by the possibility that children may obtain materials their parents may consider inappropriate. While materials are shelved by recommended age, patrons of any age may use materials in all sections of the library (see ALA Bill of Rights, Article V). Responsibility for children rests solely with their
parents or legal guardians. (Solon Public Library website, October 2022).

So yes, House File 274 directly addresses existing library policy related to the American Library Association Bill of Rights. Here is the entire ALA Bill of Rights. On Monday, Feb. 17, at 11:30 a.m., an education subcommittee of the Iowa House meets in Room 103 at the State Capitol to consider the bill.

Here is a typical pro comment from the public comments section of the bill where more than a few words were used:

02-11-2025 Jonathan Huber:

I support House File 274 because it aims to protect minors from exposure to obscene content. By repealing the obscenity exemptions, Iowans can ensure that educational and public spaces remain safe and appropriate for all students. It’s important to have clear standards that prevent the distribution of material that could be harmful or offensive. This bill helps create a more secure learning environment where students can focus on their education without the risk of encountering inappropriate content. This bill prioritizes the well being of our youth.

Here is another:

02-12-2025 Sonya Swan

Our children are our future. When a child sees something, they cannot “unsee” it. Those images are forever in their precious little minds. When they read something obscene the result is the same. As an educator, I choose the materials for the children I teach very carefully. Our public institutions, have an obligation to omit obscene material for minors regardless of the location (school or library) or the function. Please repeal 728.7

Here is a con comment:

02-13-2025 Steve Clarke

Dont pass this bill the current exception in 728.7 allows for the use of appropriate material for educational purposes. Nobody is advocating for Playboys and Xrated movies. This is part of the larger cultural wars being waged. Protect our society by denouncing censorship.

Here is a longer con comment:

02-13-2025 Sarah Smith

Do NOT pass this bill. It is not the role of libraries or librarians to determine what children can or cannot readthat responsibility belongs to parents. Rather than restricting access to books, we should encourage parents to be actively involved in their childrens reading choices.If I come across a book I dont want to read or a news channel I dont want to watch, I simply choose not to engage. Thats the beauty of intellectual freedomthe ability to decide for ourselves. HF 274 imposes unnecessary restrictions that would hinder libraries from fulfilling their mission, limiting access to information and stifling the freedom to read.Our communities thrive when libraries are empowered to serve without political interference. Please vote against HF 274 and protect our right to read, learn, and think freely.

There are a lot more comments, which can be read here.

If I can figure out the technology, I plan to watch the subcommittee meeting online. In the meanwhile, I recommend you take a look at the comments and tell your state representative to vote no should this bill make it to the full house.

UPDATE: I submitted this comment on the bill:

“Vote no on this bill. There was and is a valid reason for this exception. I hope the committee will consider these things:
Perhaps the raciest part of the public library is the romance genre section. It would be okay with me to eliminate this section completely, although many patrons read romance novels. It persists. A local group developed a solution in which a sticker is placed on romance library books suitable for Christian readers. It seems like a workable compromise, better than repealing this section of code. Secondly, I have been shocked at the content of a few books I checked out from the library. I’m thinking of the Elton John memoir Me. John talks openly about his sexuality and if I found it shocking, so could others. Should graders have access to this book? It’s not for me to say, nor for legislators. It is for parents to say. The American Library Association’s Bill of Rights is clear on this: “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” If a citizen’s group or individual objects to a book, resolution should take place at the local library or with the library board. As with my example of the racy romance novels, a solution can likely be devised at the local level. Republicans have super majorities and can enact what they will, including advancing the idea that Iowa will become a nanny-state. No reasonable person wants that. Please vote no on this bill. Thanks for reading my comment.”