A Republican-led bill just introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives would criminally charge teachers and librarians for distributing material deemed “obscene.”
The problem is that the bill does not clarify what material would be considered obscene, despite making teachers and “public school librarians” who may possess or share such material a fifth-degree felony.
State Rep. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, introduced House Bill 556 last week a bill that would “impose criminal liability on certain teachers and librarians for the crime of engaging in obscenity,” as the bill’s language says.
In this sense, a librarian is defined as “a librarian employed by a school district, other public school… or licensed nonpublic school, and a librarian employed by a district public library.”
Teachers and school district librarians would be prohibited from creating, reproducing, publishing, promoting or advertising “obscene material.” The bill also prohibits them from creating, directing or producing “obscene performances.”
But what falls under “obscenity” is not clear from the initial language HB556, which has not yet been considered by a committee in the House. The word “obscenity” appears only three times in the six-page bill: in the title of the bill and twice in reference to the title of the crime.
The word “obscene” appears eight times in the bill, but only alongside “material”, “workmanship”, “articles” and in the clause relating to the notice of “the nature of the material or workmanship”.
HB 556 seeks to amend existing statutes in the Ohio Revised Code and pulls the exact language from those statutes – for example pampering with indecency and one explaining legal issues “presumptions in obscenity cases” — but none of these laws also define what is considered obscene.
It is this lack of clarity that makes teachers and library groups hesitant about the bill.
The Ohio Education Association said it was still reviewing HB 556, and Ohio Federation of Teachers President Melissa Cropper said the group had not taken a position on the bill but was “concerned about the bill’s vagueness and the potential for it to be weaponized by entities acting in bad faith,” that focus on attacking schools and public libraries rather than protecting children.”
“We also question whether there is a need for this new legislation or whether existing legislation can address the concerns behind HB 556,” Cropper said in a statement. “We plan to discuss this bill and these concerns with legislators and our members.”
Questions also remain beyond the bill’s motivation, including whether “school district public libraries” can include community libraries that are also classified as district libraries.
Ohio Library Council executive director Michelle Francis said the group “has concerns about the regulations.”
“We have contacted the sponsor and look forward to meeting with them soon,” Francis told the Capital Journal.
The bill includes an “affirmative defense,” meaning that if a person accused of engaging in obscenity can prove that the material or performance was for a “bona fide medical, scientific, religious, governmental, judicial, or other proper purpose,” it may apply as an argument to defend against the accusation. The word “educational” was deleted from the language of the proposal to justify an affirmative defense.
As part of the affirmative defense, the material must also be provided by or to “a physician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, health or biology teacher, faculty member, person pursuing studies or research in good faith, a librarian other than a school librarian, clergyman, prosecutor, judge, or other person having a legitimate interest in the material or workmanship.”
