New Jersey Governor Signs Law Making Book Bans More Difficult, Shields Librarians From Civil Suits
from the thwarting-bigots,-protecting-librarians dept
In this new era of censorship — aided and abetted by people who think they can “make America great again” by destroying the rights that actually make America great — almost every state is dealing with mass censorship efforts. Most of these involve libraries because motivated bigots have found leverage points to maximize their efforts without ever having to leave the comfort of their homes.
Bathed in the glow of their laptops, keyboard warriors are submitting book challenges at an alarming rate, forcing states that never thought this would be an issue to play defense against part-time censors using copy-pasted boilerplate to ensure their fellow Americans only have access to the kind of content they approve of.
Book bans have been erected in several states. And many of these laws have already been struck down as unconstitutional. But for people who need to do nothing more than wield a keyboard, it hardly matters. The assault on free speech continues, mainly because it’s also an indirect assault on people of color, LGBTQ+ Americans, and anyone else considered to be too “woke” or “not white enough” to be allowed to detail their own personal experiences.
Fortunately, some states are pushing back before these efforts become a literal constitutional crisis. The state of New Jersey is the latest to preempt these unconstitutional attacks on free speech. A bill signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy not only makes book challenges more difficult, but it ensures library staff can’t be personally sued for their content moderation decisions.
Under the law, public and school libraries are barred from excluding books because of the origin, background, or views of the material or of its authors. Censoring books will also be prohibited solely because a person finds them offensive. The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
That’s only part of the good news. The other part is that the law [PDF] prevents Trump-addled Americans from personally bankrupting librarians because they made informed decisions about what content to keep in their libraries, as well as who should have access to it.
Any staff member of a public library, including a librarian employed by a public library, shall be immune from civil and criminal liability arising from good faith actions performed pursuant to the provisions of sections 9 through 11 of this act.
NJ residents are still free to throw as many BS book challenges at the wall as they can, but demands for removal are no longer entirely in the hands of library staff. Instead, their requests will be handled on an individual basis by a committee that includes librarians, government employees, a local resident (who cannot be the person named on the removal request), and other oversight officials as the government deems necessary. While the request is under review, targeted content will remain accessible to all library users.
It’s touted as a ban on book bans, but it can’t actually prevent a ban from taking place. What it does do, however, is make it extremely unlikely that any challenged book will be banned. Existing laws prohibit making obscene material available to minors and it’s extremely unlikely any state or local employee staffing libraries are interested in violating these laws. But the book banners tend to believe any content they don’t care for must violate obscenity standards and use this leverage to target local libraries and their employees for personal, litigious pain. This law ensures that can’t happen. And the creation of a review group will help prevent it from being beholden to particular ideological interests.
Of course, this isn’t going to make would-be book banners happy. They’ll argue every defeat is the result of some liberal cabal with ties to pizza molestation joints or whatever. But the rest of the state’s residents will remain well-protected under state law, as well as by the US Constitution, which the framers earnestly intended to protect US citizens from government-enabled censorship, which every book ban definitely is.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, book ban, censorship, new jersey, phil murphy
Comments on “New Jersey Governor Signs Law Making Book Bans More Difficult, Shields Librarians From Civil Suits”
This is actual free speech maximalism.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
… actually, a strict legal reading of this new NJ law text requires all public libraries to stock & provide all books in print — since no book may be banned/censored due to its content or origin.
With many millions of published books available, that’s an impossible task for librarians and review boards.
Re: Re:
Poppycock. You couldn’t have read it and drawn that conclusion. There’s nothing in the text that says every published work must be acquired. And there’s plenty in the text that emphasizes that the board of education and the librarians have the authority to curate the library’s collection, which would necessarily getting rid of materials that aren’t relevant. The text is just about stopping MAGA Karens from demanding the removal of a book for children just because it features a gay or trans character.
Here’s just a selection of relevant text:
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the section you bolded near the end is pretty clear. Even if “censorship” could ordinarily be construed to apply to not buying material, the law specifically says not to construe it that way.
I think it’s pretty ridiculous to force every board of education to “acknowledge that a school library media specialist is professionally trained to curate and develop the school library collection that provides students with access to the widest array of developmentally appropriate library material available to schools”. So what if they are?
Re: Re: Re:2
Because the Karens were doing such a fantastic job of curating and developing school library collections that provide students with access to the widest array of developmentally appropriate library material, amirite? I see you, MAGAt scum.
Re: Re: Re:3
What good does it do to force school boards to parrot that line, though? It’s meaningless. Teachers might be “professionally trained” to teach students, but that doesn’t mean every teacher does a good job of it, or that school boards shouldn’t have policies that restrict what they can do in the classroom or that indicate what they should teach.
You also don’t necessarily want the “widest array” of developmentally appropriate materials. Sometimes shelf space is better used by having two copies of the same book, or maybe you want two books with similar topics and then you skip getting one on underwater basket weaving.
Re: Re: Re:4
Willful miscomprehension is rarely persuasive.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s not meaningless. It’s an affirmation that educated, trained employees are the appropriate people to be making curation decisions and not unqualified parents and busybodies who don’t like the existence of gay and trans people.
If you read legislation enough, you’ll see this kind of text frequently. It’s explaining why it’s empowering the school boards and the librarians and preventing interference from unqualified people.
The widest array doesn’t mean all texts. You’re ignoring the context provided by the rest of the text of the legislation. This also isn’t the effective clause dictating what must be done or not done. This is the mission statement part. The librarians retain the discretion to decide what is appropriate based on their training and the needs of the curriculum.
Re: Re: Re:5
You’ll frequently see that sort of line. You won’t frequently see one level of government forcing another level of government to repeat it, though.
Re: Re: Re:6
This is legislation setting a policy for boards of education and librarians. It’s very common for policy to include explanations as to why the policy is set. It makes sure that the executors of the policy know why they’re doing what they’ve been told to do and so that any judgment calls that need to be made can be made in favor of the spirit of the law. There’s no clause here saying they have to chant this passage every morning when they walk into work. This is common in my experience working at a public institution.
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, what professional librarians and school systems have been doing since before I started going to kindergarten — and I’m retired now.
Yeah, but who gives a fuck about their feelings. Fuck ’em all.
LOL. This should always be interpreted as: a place that kneeds their pizza dough too much.
And never what ever disjointed ramblings the nearest stoned person is raving about.
For places where actual (non-culinary) crimes are occurring, “pizza” need not be involved.
Re: Won't somebody think about the pizza
Yeah, the staff should not be molesting the pizza.
And, wait, they can sell joints in pizza parlors?
The new Republican’s nightmare: The New Jersey’s Freedom to Read Act.
Re:
“People should have the freedom to read—whatever we tell them they can read, that is!” — Republicans, probably
Not simply “too woke or not white enough”. Also includes, “accurately portraying history that is not flattering to the indignant.”
Some time or another, I’m going to have to find an excuse to use the word, “Indinitary” to describe someone famous running off at the mouth about some “outrage”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Please stop lying and calling things “bans” when they are not. No book in the United States is banned. Any publisher (corporate or self-) can publish and distribute any book on any subject for any reason at any time. There are no “book bans”!
Same deal with calling content moderation “censorship”. It’s just a lie.
Re:
Not too bright, are ya.
Re: Re:
Partisanship, fundamentalism, and political extremism have an as yet unquantified, yet undeniable and readily observed, deleterious effect on cognitive function — especially those aspects of cognitive function required for effective critical thinking.
Re:
If a school library has been forbidden to stock a particular book, then that is indeed a ban on that particular book in that particular library. If anyone’s lying here, it’s you.
Re:
So what word should we use to please you when the government writes laws that forbid libraries from having books on some topics? It’s quite simple, if the government says “it’s illegal for public libraries to stock these books” those books have been banned since the whole point of that type of exercise is to make it harder for people to access and read those types of books.
Imagine if the criteria for banning books from public libraries was that they expressed conservative views, the amount of screaming about censorship would be endless. What’s interesting here is that the current selection of banned books mostly express liberal views in one way or another and you seem to think that’s just fine to the extent you are defending the government trying to censor viewpoints they don’t like.
You also conflate private action with government action, if you don’t understand the difference you aren’t fit to have an opinion about it.
Re:
https://pen.org/book-ba
Really? Then why are there handy dandy lists of banned books available? Also, free speech laws provide protection against government censorship. A local government banning books and punishing those who read/stock them is censorship. Private tech companies choosing to moderate their platforms as they see fit isn’t a violation of rights to free speech, even if they’re bad at it.