'Parental rights' or 'book banning zealots'? RI bill opens up culture war over school libraries.
PROVIDENCE – Rhode Island lawmakers are once again embroiled in what Westerly librarian Bill Lancellotta described as a "culture war that pits First Amendment advocates against book banning zealots."
But others contend the battle is over "parental rights," and, more specifically, the kinds of books that school libraries make available to children.
Those warring – and passionately-held views – about the merits of this year's "Freedom to Read" legislation played out in a legislative hearing room on Wednesday night, with some opponents of the bill insisting Rhode Island's teachers and librarians are "pedophiles" and "groomers" intent on peddling pornography to school children.
"I have seen the literature ("Lawn Boy," "Gender Queer") that is put in our schools and libraries for children and teens to read. These books teach children and teens about sexual acts and ... immoral behavior," James Richardson wrote the Senate Education Committee.
"As someone who has a daughter, I find it abhorrent that [state legislators] would lobby to have pornographic content continue to be in schools and be able to be read in libraries," he wrote.
But the many parents, teachers, librarians and clergy who spoke in favor of the legislation on Wednesday night said it protects a vital freedom from "anti-Democratic" and "authoritarian" actions by people and groups intent on "controlling the narratives and perspectives to which young people are exposed."
One speaker after another cited the "troubling rise in efforts to ban books from schools and public libraries," particularly in states like Florida, Texas, and Idaho, with the efforts focused on books "that explore issues of race, gender, and identity."
The legislation requires school libraries, in particular, to have a clear policy for evaluating "right-to-remove requests," while shielding librarians from getting personally sued by a person or group unhappy with a decision, as famously happened in Westerly.
Sponsored in the Rhode Island House of Representatives by Rep. David Morales and in the Senate by Sen. Mark McKenney, the legislation [ S238] says, in part:
"The freedom to read is a human right, constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to the United States [and Rhode Island] Constitution ... Authors, creators, and publishers have a right to communicate their ideas to anyonewho is interested in receiving them. Students and library patrons of all ages have a correspondingright to encounter them without government interference."
The bill calls on the state's chief of library services to create a "model policy" that, among other things, recognizes that public libraries are "centers for voluntary inquiry ... [that] promote the free expression of and free access to ideas."
It would limit requests-to-remove books from school libraries to parents or guardians of children within that school, in the wake of a Washington Post analysis that found the majority of 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people.
Significantly, the legislation would also create a right-to-sue for librarians, students, authors, booksellers and publishers whose are, in one way or another, damaged by censorship.
"It essentially upholds the notion that we've all long held that free libraries are critical to the enlightenment of the citizenry and to the advancement of Democracy," said the lead Senate sponsor, Sen. Mark McKenney.
But it also anticipates the state's chief librarian will work with the commissioner for elementary and secondary education to make sure "appropriate" policies are in place for school libraries, "with things such as age appropriateness considered," McKenney said.
Amy Rodrigues, the Washington County, Rhode Island chapter chair of Moms for Liberty, said the bill, as she reads it, protects "bad actors," usurps parental rights and allows for legal action by authors, booksellers, and publishers "against elected officials, who we the parents vote for, if they remove ... inappropriate materials."
"I took my three children to local libraries with the assumption that they were safe places for children to learn without the risk of having their developing brains harmed from seeing pervasively vulgar graphic content that they can't unsee," she said.
Westerly activist Robert Chiaradio went farther.
He called the bill "trash" that does "nothing more than adopting into law ... the agendas [that] many on the left, including those on this committee, seek which is [the] absolute legal right to racialize, radicalize, and sexualize Rhode Island's kids via age inappropriate books ... [and] shield librarians and school districts from any responsibility for the harm they do to these kids by making age inappropriate books available to them."
While singling out the only Republican on the committee for "probably for being the lone voice of reason on this," he said, "the rest of you are the usual cast of characters that we've dealt with before."
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Bill to stop book banning in RI has both sides slinging insults
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Los Angeles, progressive beacon at center of anti-Trump backlash
By Costas Pitas LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -Protests in Los Angeles against raids on suspected undocumented immigrants have turned into the strongest domestic backlash against President Donald Trump since he took office in January. Here is how the Democratic-leaning city and state of California vary from Trump's Republicans and his support in the U.S. heartland. PARTY POLITICS Nationwide, Trump won around 2.5 million more votes than his Democratic rival Kamala Harris in the November presidential election but in Los Angeles, Harris won by a margin of roughly two to one. Of the 50 U.S. states, California backed Harris by the fifth largest margin. California is also home to several top-level Democrats, including Harris herself, and long-time former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Governor Gavin Newsom is a Democrat, as is the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass. Both have complained about Trump's tactics this week. The party raises millions in the state from wealthy donors and grassroots supporters, sometimes in a single day. DEMOGRAPHICS At 27.3%, California has the highest foreign-born population of any U.S. state, compared to 13.9% of the total U.S. population, according to a 2024 Census report. Nearly half of Angelenos are Hispanic or Latino and some 35% of the city's total population is foreign-born, according to the American Community Survey, with many cultural and business ties to Mexico, which is only about a two-hour drive south. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Faced with persistently bad air quality, especially in cities with strong driving cultures such as Los Angeles, California has developed some of the strictest environmental regulations in the country, opposed by many Republicans. A landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035 in California is in the crosshairs of a battle between its Democratic leadership and the Republican-run federal government, also because many other states replicate California's first-in-the-nation action. In May, the Republican-run Senate in Washington voted to ban the plan and it is now awaiting Trump's signature. He is expected to sign it this week, according to industry officials. HOLLYWOOD American movies and television are one of the most visible U.S. exports, emanating from an LA-based industry that had been hailed by liberals for boosting diversity but criticized by some conservatives for creating films that include LGBT stories. In May, Trump suggested a tariff on movies produced in foreign countries to protect a domestic industry that he said was "dying a very fast death." But when China retaliated by saying it would curb American film imports, he prompted laughter at a cabinet meeting by a response that signaled his derision for Hollywood: "I think I've heard of worse things."
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. "A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them," Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. "That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable." California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about "the scope of the Marines' mission and duties." Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to "restore order" and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, "did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment." The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States," but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, "Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries. "It was heading in the wrong direction," Trump said Monday. "It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess." On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
