'Parental rights' or 'book banning zealots'? RI bill opens up culture war over school libraries.
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


The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump taps conservative economist EJ Antoni to serve as next labor statistics chief
President Trump on Monday announced he would nominate E.J. Antoni, a top economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to serve as the next commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after he pushed out the previous leader. 'Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'I know E.J. Antoni will do an incredible job in this new role. Congratulations E.J.!' Antoni is the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation and previously contributed to Project 2025's policy rubric, which outlined potential moves for the next GOP administration during the 2024 campaign. Antoni has in the past expressed skepticism about data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He recently appeared on conservative firebrand Steve Bannon's podcast to urge Trump to fire the previous commissioner, Erika McEntarfer. The position requires Senate confirmation, but Republicans hold a 53-47 GOP majority, giving Antoni a path to the job even if there are defections. Trump earlier this month ordered the firing of McEntarfer, a Biden White House appointee who was confirmed with a large bipartisan majority in the Senate in 2024. The move came after the jobs report released in early August showed lower-than-expected hiring in July and major downward revisions to the jobs reports from May and June. While Trump and his allies argued it was a move intended to improve transparency and accuracy, critics noted McEntarfer had little to do with what the numbers showed. Economists and lawmakers also expressed concern that it would erode credibility and confidence in government data, hurting businesses and consumers in the process.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Ex-Kentucky clerk Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage ruling: ‘Legal fiction'
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who violated the rights of a gay couple, has petitioned the Supreme Court to revisit its landmark decision on same-sex marriage – slamming the ruling as a 'legal fiction.' Davis, 59, served five days in jail in 2015 after she refused to issue a marriage license to gay couple David Ermold and David Moore shortly after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. The former Rowan County, Ky., clerk was subsequently ordered to pay a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages and $260,000 in attorneys' fees to the married couple. Advertisement She asked the high court – in a 90-page filing last month – to review a lower court's 2022 finding that she violated Ermold and Moore's constitutional right to marry and revisit its decision in the same-sex marriage case. 3 Davis claims her First Amendment rights were violated when she was jailed and ordered to pay damages to the gay couple she refused to grant a marriage license to. AP 'If ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it,' Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit law firm representing Davis, wrote in the petition. Advertisement 'Davis was jailed, haled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported emotional distress,' the filing continued, arguing that Davis was protected by her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion in denying the marriage licences. The petition also asks the justices to consider 'whether Obergefell v. Hodges … and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.' 3 The Supreme Court previously turned down a chance to review Davis' case in 2020. REUTERS 'Kim Davis' case underscores why the US Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman,' Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. Advertisement 'Obergefell cannot just push the First Amendment aside to punish individuals for their beliefs about marriage,' Staver added. 'The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood.' 'The High Court now has the opportunity to finally overturn this egregious opinion from 2015.' 3 The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. REUTERS William Powell, an attorney for Ermold and Moore, told The Post that he is 'confident' the Supreme Court won't take up Davis' case. Advertisement 'We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention,' Powell, who serves as senior counsel at Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said in a statement. 'Marriage equality is settled law,' he added. The Supreme Court previously denied a 2020 petition from Davis to consider her appeal.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Five takeaways as Trump seizes control of DC police, deploys National Guard
President Trump announced on Monday that he was taking control of the District of Columbia's police and deploying the National Guard. Trump portrayed the moves, which will involve around 800 National Guard troops, as a response to high crime rates in the nation's capital. He said it was an attempt to 'rescue' the District from 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.' Reporters in a packed White House briefing room received handouts just before the president spoke where the District's murder rate was shown as higher than those of other international cities including Bogota, Delhi and London. Police statistics, however, show that crime rates in the District have fallen sharply over the past two years. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared year-to-date against 2024. Last year, in turn, saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023. That being said, the total number of homicides last year, 187, was still above the years that immediately preceded 2020's COVID-19 pandemic. Here are the main takeaways from Trump's announcement. A major assertion of federal power — and Trump's power The decision from Trump was more expansive than many people expected. A deployment of National Guard troops had been predicted, in part because the District's status — short of full statehood — gives the president clear control of when the Guard is deployed. The decision to wrest control of Washington's police — the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — was a significantly larger step. The fact that it came amid falling crime rates makes it even more controversial. So too does the politics of the District. Voters who gave then-Vice President Harris more than 90 percent of their votes last November will have their police force taken over by a notably divisive Republican president. Trump secured fewer than seven percent of the vote in D.C. The Home Rule Act of 1973, which gives the District its current measure of autonomy, provides for a president taking emergency control of the D.C. police for 48 hours. During that period, a president who wishes to extend control is supposed to provide the reasons for that decision to the chairpersons and ranking members of House and Senate committees with responsibilities for the District. Doing this enables presidential control for 30 days. Any extension beyond that, the statute says, can only come if 'the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' Whether Trump accedes to those requirements remains to be seen. D.C. mayor offers modulated response District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) was critical of Trump's decision without intensifying her rhetoric as much as she could have. Bowser called the president's move 'unsettling and unprecedented' in a news conference. She also used the move to reiterate her belief that D.C. should be granted full statehood — a long-standing aim for many of the District's voters. In relation to a question about the prospect of military troops being deployed, Bowser said: 'I think I speak for all Americans: We don't believe it is legal to use the American military against American citizens on American soil.' But Bowser struck a fairly restrained tone throughout — including on social media where she wrote: 'Here's where we stand after today's announcement: we will follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep D.C. safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.' Not everyone in city government was quite so measured. The District's attorney general, Brian Schwalb (D), said that Trump's move was 'unlawful' and asserted that 'there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.' Democrats, liberal groups worry about militarization at Trump's behest Beyond the D.C. government, Democrats, liberals and civil rights groups expressed angst over what they see as Trump's penchant for gratuitous militarization. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement that Trump's 'ever-expanding use of the military for domestic matters is beyond alarming.' Reed cited as a precursor Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year — against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — saying that this showed a willingness 'to deploy U.S. military forces on American streets for inflammatory and political reasons.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) accused Trump of being 'an incoherent wannabe dictator who is trying to turn D.C. into his personal police state.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) contended that 'using U.S. military forces to enforce a policy agenda on American soil is a gross abuse of power that reeks of authoritarianism.' Among the broader criticism, Monica Hopkins, the executive director of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump's move, 'political theater and a blatantly phony justification for abuse of emergency powers.' It's unclear where things go from here Even amid all the words on both sides, there is a lot of uncertainty. One obvious question is whether Trump will fulfill the demands of the Home Rule Act, in terms of informing Congress about the reasons for his decision to take control of the police, and in ceding back control of the MPD after no more than 30 days. Another issue is where exactly the National Guard or other federally-commanded troops will be deployed. Trump has focused on tourist-friendly areas being besmirched by crime. But in fact Washington's worst crime rates by far are found in the economically deprived neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, far from the epicenter of tourism. Another uncertainty hangs over what the president would characterize as success. In a social media post, he insisted that crime — as well as 'Savagery, Filth and Scum' — would 'DISAPPEAR' from D.C. Presumably he doesn't consider literally zero crime to be an achievable goal. Does any crime at all amount in his mind to justification for maintaining federal control? The news conference wasn't all about D.C. During Monday's news conference, Trump took questions on other topics. The most interesting moments came when he discussed his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Trump's tone suggested a new turn against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky during an Oval Office meeting in late February but more recently the president had seemed to be putting pressure on Putin. That changed back Monday, when Trump once again appeared to blame Zelensky for the war, which was in fact started by Russia's 2022 invasion. 'I get along with Zelensky but, you know, I disagree with what he's done — very severely disagree,' Trump said. 'This is a war that should have never happened.' A deadline Trump had set for new sanctions on Russia expired on Friday without action being taken.