蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

A Republican-led bill just introduced in the Ohio House would charge teachers and librarians with a felony offense for distributing material deemed 鈥渙bscene.鈥�

The problem is, the bill does not explain what materials would be considered obscene, despite laying a fifth-degree felony on the feet of teachers and 鈥減ublic school librarians鈥� who may possess or share such material.

State Rep. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, put forth last week, a bill that would 鈥渃reate criminal liability for certain teachers and librarians for the offense of pandering obscenity,鈥� according to the language of the bill.

Librarian, in this sense, is defined as 鈥渁 librarian employed by a school district, other public school 鈥� or chartered nonpublic school and a librarian employed in a school district public library.鈥�

Teachers and school district librarians would be barred from creating, reproducing, publishing, promoting or advertising 鈥渙bscene material.鈥� They are also prohibited from creating, directing or producing 鈥渁n obscene performance,鈥� the bill states.

But what falls under 鈥渙bscenity鈥� is not clear from the initial language of , which has yet to receive committee consideration in the House. The word 鈥渙bscenity鈥� only appears three times in the six-page bill: in the title of the proposed legislation and twice referring to the title of the criminal offense.

鈥淥bscene鈥� shows up eight times in the bill, but only accompanying 鈥渕aterial,鈥� 鈥減erformance,鈥� 鈥渁rticles鈥� and in a clause about giving notice about 鈥渢he character of the material or a performance.鈥�

HB 556 aims to amend existing statutes in the Ohio Revised Code, and pulls exact language from those statutes 鈥� for and one explaining legal 鈥溾�� 鈥� but neither of those statutes lay out what is considered obscenity either.

It鈥檚 that lack of clarity that is giving teachers and library groups hesitation on the bill.

The Ohio Education Association said it is still reviewing HB 556, and Ohio Federation of Teachers president Melissa Cropper said the group has not taken a position on the bill, but she is 鈥渃oncerned with the vagueness of the bill and the ability for it to be weaponized by bad faith actors who are focused on attacking public schools and libraries, not on protecting children.鈥�

鈥淲e also question whether there is need for this new bill or if existing laws can address the concerns behind HB 556,鈥� Cropper said in a statement. 鈥淲e plan to discuss this bill and these concerns with legislators and with our members.鈥�

Questions beyond the motivations of the bill are still coming up as well, including whether or not 鈥渟chool district public libraries鈥� can include the libraries of a community that are also classified as school district libraries.

The Ohio Library Council鈥檚 executive director, Michelle Francis, said the group does 鈥渉ave concerns with the legislation.鈥�

鈥淲e reached out to the sponsor and we look forward to meeting with him soon,鈥� Francis told the Capital Journal.

The bill includes an 鈥渁ffirmative defense,鈥� meaning if the person accused of pandering obscenity can prove the material or performance was 鈥渇or a bona fide medical, scientific, religious, governmental, judicial or other proper purpose,鈥� they can use that as a defense against the charge. The word 鈥渆ducational鈥� was struck from the language in the proposal as reasoning for an affirmative defense.

As part of the affirmative defense, the material must also have been given by or to a 鈥減hysician, psychologist, sociologist, scientist, health or biology teacher, faculty member, person pursuing bona fide studies or research, librarian other than a school librarian, member of the clergy, prosecutor, judge or other person having a proper interest in the material or performance.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.