Regional and local library officials across Georgia are expressing fear and uncertainty over a proposed Senate Bill that could subject librarians to criminal prosecution if a child checks out a book deemed “harmful.”
Senate Bill 74, backed by Republican lawmakers, seeks to remove existing legal protections for libraries and librarians, potentially exposing them to criminal charges for distributing materials considered harmful. The bill’s language does not clearly define “harmful,” leaving its interpretation open-ended, though the legal definition of “obscene” is well-established under the law.
Under current law, obscene material is defined as content lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value while depicting sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner that appeals to a prurient interest. While SB 74 does not explicitly redefine these standards, it does strip away exemptions that have long protected public and school libraries from prosecution.
Library officials across Northeast Georgia say the vague wording of the bill has created widespread unease. Delana Knight, regional director of the Northeast Georgia Library System, which oversees six libraries across Stephens, Rabun, White and Habersham counties, said library staff and patrons are particularly concerned about how the law will be interpreted.
According to Knight, there are policies on the books that have long existed which prohibited libraries from distributing obscene material to children. With more than 45,000 items within Clarkesville’s library alone, Knight said the bill could place librarians in a precarious position and possibly force them to determine what content might be deemed harmful by an undefined legal standard.
“I think we have concerns about how ‘harmful’ to minors is being interpreted,” Knight said. “As a regional library system, we already have policies in place that state we cannot distribute materials that are harmful to minors. We just want to be sure our definition and interpretation of that is the same as the bill. We also recognize the authority of parents to decide what is appropriate for their families, and of course, that is different for every family. We respect that, and we respect the parents’ decisions on what their children check out from the library.”
Shawna Meers-Ernst, manager of the Clarkesville Library, echoed these concerns and said public libraries operate under different structures than school libraries. In schools, educators act as legal guardians while students browse bookshelves. In public libraries, responsibility for a child’s reading choices typically falls on parents.
“That is based on what families think is appropriate or inappropriate in their households,” she said. “…the legal definitions of things that are obscene are definitely not things we purchase for our collections. But some things are offensive to some people, and necessary and important to other people. It would not be based on my determination, but based on what families think is appropriate.”
A key issue, Meers-Ernst added, is that what is considered “harmful” varies widely among families. She cited the “Harry Potter” series as an example – stating some parents find the books inappropriate, while others see them as valuable literature. She also expressed concern that books featuring same-sex parents or non-traditional families could be unfairly targeted under the law.
“That’s not obscene,” she said. “That’s not explicit. Our collection in our library – we put in a lot of effort to make sure it reflects our community. Absolutely, we have people in our community that have two moms in their family or two dads in their family. It’s important to represent those people – because they are part of our community, and we love them. That’s part of the concern – is how far can someone take this?”
She added: “We really hope the language gets worked out in the bill a little bit better. ‘Harmful’ isn’t legally defined. Obscenity is legally defined. ‘Harmful’ is incredibly subjective. A family might think Harry Potter is harmful. We respect that. We don’t have an opinion about that. But another family won’t find it harmful. The law, absolutely, cannot be subjective. We love being here. We love our job. We want to keep doing it…situations like this cause us to be a little insecure and a little nervous about doing our job.”
Georgia Sen. Drew Echols, R-Alto, a sponsor of the bill, defended the measure which he said is aimed at stopping “bad actors” who knowingly provide explicit materials to minors. He insisted that books like “Harry Potter” would not fall under the scope of prosecution.
Echols said the bill would reaffirm existing code already on the books – specifically banning nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement and portrayal of sadomasochism abuse.
“You can’t legislate morality,” Echols said. “There’s no way. But we’re talking about (content) harmful to minors…we’re not pulling Harry Potter off the shelves. I just have to believe that it can’t be that hard to have a section that kids can’t get to…that’s my goal is there’s no bad actors out there.”
Echols went on to say he believes the proposed bill should more or less be enforced depending on circumstances, insinuating criminal prosecution would not apply to libraries who allow children to purchase books containing stories about same-sex couples.
“I think it’s a case-by-case situation,” Echols said. “I would love for our libraries to reflect our communities, but again, people are different.”
Georgia Sen. Bo Hatchett, R-Cornelia, also said the bill is not intended to target librarians – but individuals who aim to corrupt children by “knowingly” providing explicit content to minors. He emphasized the “good faith effort” in the law that states librarians who are unaware that children obtain age-inappropriate material will not be held responsible.
“If you knowingly provide something that is obscene to a child, you could be criminally held liable for it,” Hatchett said.
Hatchett said there was an instance in Hiawassee about two years ago when a librarian allegedly provided sexually explicit content to children, spurring action from lawmakers.
“As long as a librarian shows a good faith effort to keep (explicit material) away from children, then they will not be held liable,” he said.
As a final note, Knight said the Library System of Northeast Georgia remains committed to literacy efforts across the region despite political waves.
“We respect parents’ rights to decide what (children check out),” Knight said. “We want to be able to serve all of the members of our community and make the library a welcoming place.”
