S3893 | A4120 – Legislating Permanent Pornography In School Libraries.
Democrats go all-in with a proposed bill to ensure dangerous content such as pornography has a permanent home in our local school systems.
By Jon Kurpis
In my last article, which you genuinely should read before proceeding, I accurately chronicled the false book banning narrative currently being propagated by school librarians across the nation. Not only did it prove that their overall notion was incorrect, it also established that inappropriate, dangerous books do exist and that they have no place in a school library which serves underage students. This article is the organic follow up to that previous piece. It details a newly introduced Bill S3893 | A4210 that seeks to legally guarantee that pornography and other dangerous books and materials cannot be removed from a school library in the State of N.J.
Included below is the first part of the official Statement that can be found at the bottom of the legislation. It’s meant to give the public a general overview of what the bill hopes to achieve.
“…This bill prohibits a governing body of any free public library, joint free public library, free county library, and free regional library from banning or restricting access to books or other resource materials because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
Additionally, this bill requires the governing body of these public libraries to either adopt: 1) the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, which provides that books and materials “should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation,” or “because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval”; or 2) a policy prohibiting the banning or restricting access to a book or resource because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
…This bill amends current law to permit the withholding of State Library aid if a public library fails to follow the provisions of this act.”
At first glance, S3893 | A4210 appears to be reasonable. It seeks to ensure that public libraries cannot ban a book or resource for political reasons or doctrinal disapproval. Additionally, it requires that a public library adopt the American Library Association’s (ALA) Bill of Rights or create a similar policy that ensures that banning or restricting access to a book or resource is prohibited. Lastly, the bill authorizes future library funding to be potentially withheld should the public library governing body fail to comply with S3893.
As made clear in my previous article, I do NOT support censorship in public libraries. So long as questionable content is properly stored away from minors, nothing should be off-limits to adults. This unfortunately means potentially abhorrent and even dangerous information may be available to any adult who chooses it. But being a 2nd Amendment advocate who has spent decades addressing the fact that we must punish the person rather than ban dangerous weapons from law abiding citizens, I cannot in good conscience support banning a book or resource from a law-abiding adult because it’s theoretically dangerous. That would be, in my humble opinion, the epitome of hypocrisy. Our Constitution guarantees us sacred freedoms. And with matters pertaining to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, you punish the person who abuses it. You never curtail the freedom.
Despite my unequivocal support of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for adults, I’ve also made it known in my previous article that I hold school libraries (created to serve minors and children) to a different, much more cautious standard.
So what is wrong with the S3893 | A4210 proposed legislation?
When one carefully looks into S3893 and strips away the parts focused directly on public libraries, some troubling issues begin to emerge.
Below is the remaining part of the official Statement that is included in the formal legislation.
“…this bill prohibits a board of education of a school district from banning or restricting access to books or other resource materials in a school library.
Under the bill, a board of education is similarly required to adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights or a policy prohibiting the banning or restricting access to books or resources.
The bill permits the Commissioner of Education to withhold State aid to any board of education that does not follow the provisions of this act.
The bill’s provisions should not be construed to require a…board of education to purchase, or otherwise acquire, a book or resource for inclusion in its collection.”
As you can see, S3893 | A4210 takes the legislation that is only suitable for public libraries and sneakily applies it to school libraries which serve minors and children. This is troubling and raises some immediate concerns. For example:
• The legislation states that schools cannot ban or restrict access to any book or resource, but does not define what constitutes a book and/or qualifies as a resource or if any exceptions exist.
• S3893 | A4210 also grants the unprecedented authority to stop ALL funding to a school district that is not in compliance with the bill, but fails to give any information about how this would happen, the protocols involved, the rights of the parties involved and/or any mechanisms available to challenge any decision regarding compliance, etc.
In addition to the important issues mentioned above, S3893 | A4210 also requires that every Board of Education adopt the ALA’s Bill of Rights.
Any legally required adoption of a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) Bill of Rights is a red flag because the people who created it are unelected and unaccountable.
Now those who support S3893 | A4210 will point to the fact that a school doesn’t have to adopt the ALA Bill of Rights. The bill gives them the option to create their own custom Bill of Rights based on the ALA example. Although this is technically true, it’s not truly a viable option. This is because most schools are without extra funds for such random legal initiatives. In fact, no knowledgeable elected official could possibly expect a cash strapped school district to afford the cost associated with retaining an attorney to research and create a custom Bill of Rights for them. And when you take into account that failure to comply could result in your school losing ALL its funding, the vast majority of schools are going to be put into a situation where adopting the ALA Bill of Rights is the only move they can realistically make to comply. So objectively speaking, S3893 | A4210 all but ensures that the ALA Bill of Rights will be adopted by most districts and especially the ones in the lower income areas.
To be both fair and responsible, the time necessary to thoroughly review the ALA Bill of Rights was taken and done so with an open mind. Before giving you an assessment of it, it’s important that you take a look at it for yourself.
ALA BILL OF RIGHTS
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.
I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
VI. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.
Similar to Bill S3893 | A4210, the ALA Bill of Rights seemed somewhat reasonable at first glance. However, further inspection raised some very significant issues especially considering that this Bill of Rights will influence our schools and our law.
Specifically:
“Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”
What is their definition of “materials” and also “doctrinal disapproval”? Why are other conventional terms defined in the bill and not these examples?
“Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.”
Does this mean that a NJ high school library could be legally compelled to assist a group of minor attracted adults who are concerned that student access to their lifestyle ideas and art is being censored?
“All people, regardless of…age…possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use.”
Could S3893 | A4210 in any way restrict parents of underage students from potentially obtaining their children’s personal school library use records such as the books they’ve checked out?
Lastly, what happens if the ALA updates their Bill of Rights or changes how they officially interpret them? Would future changes automatically apply to any school who adopted their previous Bill of Rights? The ALA has updated their Bill of Rights multiple times in the past. Why doesn’t the S3893 | A4210 legislation specify what would happen if it were to occur again in the future?
And as frightening as these unresolved questions may be, the following paragraph was included at the very bottom of the ALA Bill of Rights and with it came even more issues and more unanswered questions.
“Although the Articles of the Library Bill of Rights are unambiguous statements of basic principles that should govern the service of all libraries, questions do arise concerning application of these principles to specific library practices. See the documents designated by the intellectual Freedom Committee as Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights.”
The American Library Association’s Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights is incredibly in depth. Below are just a few direct quotes from the ALA website.
“Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users is in violation of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights.”
“Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, apparent maturity, educational level, literacy skills, emancipatory or other legal status of users violates Article V.”
“The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.”
“Constitutionally protected speech cannot be suppressed solely to protect children or young adults from ideas or images...”
“students and minors…have a right to be free from any unreasonable intrusion into or surveillance of their lawful library use.”
“Libraries and library governing bodies should not use rating systems to inhibit a minor’s access to materials.”
After reading just some of the numerous Interpretations of the ALA Bill of Rights, anyone who is responsible would have a valid reason to be concerned.
The ALA states they oppose any restriction of library resources due to age and doing so is in violation of their Bill of Rights. Furthermore, they believe that minors should be able to access any materials without a betrayal of their privacy and they do not fundamentally agree with giving students library use records to their parents. They also do not believe in rating systems to prevent students from accessing harmful materials.
Hoping to find anything that would alleviate these concerns or help us to better understand S3893 | A4210, a deep dive into the ALA organization was done for more context and clarification on these issues.
On the one hand, the ALA does offer a voluminous amount of info about their positions on their website. Unfortunately, the information provided not only justified any initial concerns, but actually could lead parents and elected officials to believe that this matter and organization is far worse than one could have possibly imagined.
In a nutshell, the ALA has transformed from a once respected organization, who fought against the suppression of free speech into a woke, reckless lobby group funded by the likes of George Soros. Despite being named the ‘American’ Library Association, they actually are now globalist driven with sponsorships coming from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank Publications, and the United Nations Publications. In their own words, the ALA believes its their responsibility to “prepare them (children) to be responsible, effective members of a global society.”
Instead of focusing primarily on literacy issues and protecting free speech for adults, the ALA is obsessed with doing everything and anything to ensure school libraries expose minors to books that legitimately could be classified as smut or pornography and they do this without the slightest care for the potential longterm negative consequences of their initiatives. Just look at what they admit to in writing!
What devices/formats do they (the ALA) want minors and children to have unfiltered access to in a school library?
“Children and young adults unquestionably possess…the right to receive information through the library in print, sound, images, data, social media, online applications, games, technologies, programming, and other formats”
What is their position on filtering the internet so dangerous content can’t be viewed by children in a school library?
“…consistent with previous resolutions, the American Library Association cannot recommend filtering.”
What do they think about responsible age restrictions?
“Libraries should not limit the selection and development of library resources simply because minors will have access to them.”
Do they believe these positions apply to all libraries including school libraries?
“The principles of the Library Bill of Rights apply equally to all libraries, including school libraries”
If you think the ALA are just a bunch of hippies who pose no real world danger, you are sadly mistaken. The ALA is fully engaged in legal and legislative warfare and is already training librarians, library workers and educators how to fight back against parents and other reasonable adults. Once again, look at their own words and lecture names.
“Libraries and their library governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections, because only a court of law can determine whether or not content is constitutionally protected.”
Help! They're Coming for our Books!
“Upon completion, participants will be able to describe the legal rights of libraries and be able to use resources given to combat censorship.”
Is your Library Challenge Ready?
“Building on these foundational documents…will allow attendees to initiate efforts toward strengthening their response to possible intellectual freedom challenges.”
The sad truth is the information published in this article is only the tip of the iceberg in regards to the ALA, their Bill of Rights and their involvement in dangerous NJ legislation S3893 | A4210. Our elected officials have no business tying our public school system to this irresponsible, out of state NGO. At the very least, anyone who cares about minors should make this known to their Senator and Assembly representatives.
Coming full circle, it is essential to understand S3893 | A4210 in totality and to be familiar with what is really being proposed by Trenton Democrats.
S3893 | A4210 is at its core lazy, harmful, over-the-top, duplicitous legislation.
The bill purposefully starts off under a guise of legitimacy by offering reasonable regulations to prevent unconstitutional censorship in public libraries. However, those efforts are just a smokescreen used to cover the true intention of the Bill which is to take regulations uniquely situated for public libraries and sneakily force them on public schools as a mechanism to prevent dangerous content such as pornography from being removed.
The way NJ Democrats are seeking to achieve this goal is in part by being intentionally vague. For example, S3893 | A4210 applies not just to library books, but also to all “resources” and “materials”. It then prohibits the books, resources and materials from being removed on the basis of political or “doctrinal disapproval”.
“Doctrinal disapproval” is a vague term made up by the ALA and can mean or be applied to just about anything. Unlike the other parts of S3893 | A4210 that include important definitions directly in the bill, the section of S3893 | A4210 that applies to our public schools lacks definitions and is left intentionally vague. By purposely failing to define things like “resources”, “materials” and “doctrinal disapproval”, the school librarian has a legal means of control over everything offline and online. Moreover, any responsible attempt to remove inappropriate smut can be squashed by claiming it’s doctrinal disapproval. And since doctrinal disapproval isn’t defined anywhere in the law, it will always apply and be strategically used against parents and conscientious BOE’s.
To further strengthen the school library’s legal stranglehold over the content presented to underage students, NJ Democrats joined forces with the Soros funded ALA and require that all Boards of Education adopt their Bill of Rights which also includes their restrictive positions detailed in the ALA Interpretations. In order to give people the illusion of choice, S3893 | A4210 cleverly allows a BOE to create their own Bill of Rights based on the ALA example. However, they only do this because the Democrats know that it is unrealistic for cash strapped school districts to spend desperately needed resources on the creation of a custom Bill of Rights when one is provided to them free of charge. And given that an error in a custom Bill of Rights could lead to non-compliance which in turn could lead to all school funding being withheld, the overwhelming majority of schools will be pigeonholed into adopting this ludicrous and highly restrictive ALA Bill of Rights.
Another insidious aspect of S3893 | A4210 is that it makes compliance failure something that can result in a school losing ALL funding. This is an outrageous penalty even by the wokest standards. For those who are unaware, this specific type of library regulation has been without comparable precedence until very recently. In fact, the first ever instance of this sort of regulation only occurred in March 2023 with Illinois House Bill 2789. Even in the liberal state of Illinois, House Bill 2789 was met with considerable pushback. This was despite the fact that it’s far less troubling than New Jersey’s proposed legislation. Unlike NJ, the Illinois Bill only required that as a condition of qualifying for future grants, libraries are compelled to implement a policy prohibiting the practice of banning books. Alternatively, Illinois libraries may also choose to adopt the ALA Bill of Rights. This is the totality of the Illinois legislation and it still wasn’t well received. Now compare that to S3893 | A4210 proposed by NJ Democrats. S3893 | A4210 stands out as a grossly over-the-top, restrictive legislation with outrageous penalties and an unacceptable lack of details.
The final illegitimate aspect of S3893 | A4210 is that it gives the appearance of rationality by not requiring a BOE to acquire any particular book. This is just more smokescreen to obfuscate the bills’ true intent. Legally speaking, whether or not a school or BOE purchases a book does not solely determine if it makes it into a school library collection. For instance, it is common practice for people and outside organizations to gift books to school libraries. If a bad faith actor gifts an unsuitable book or resource to a school library and the librarian accepts it and adds it to the collection, S3893 | A4210 makes it virtually impossible to remove. And if a BOE, parent or educator incorrectly attempts to remove a gifted book or resource that a responsible adult would consider to be smut, the school could literally lose all of its funding.
The bottomline is S3893 | A4210 is terrible legislation on all fronts. The bill is a disturbing attempt to permanently force potentially harmful content on minors in a school library. Furthermore, it ties our state law to an unaccountable NGO’s policies and places unacceptable financial penalties on school districts who oppose their underage students being placed in harms way.
No matter how its broken down or evaluated, S3893 | A4210 is shown to be completely unacceptable. The time is now for our Senators and Assembly Representatives to step up and defend our children and our public school libraries.
OUR LEADERS MUST IMMEDIATELY PUT FORTH THE FIGHT OF THEIR LIVES TO STOP S3893 | A4210!
It is not going to be easy and there is no swanky reward. Leaders must step up solely because it’s the right thing to do.
And if our elected officials fail to take a stand on such a critically important issue regarding our young school aged children, then they have proven that they are unfit to serve and need to be primaried into oblivion!
~ Jon Kurpis
🐦 Twitter | [at] kurpis
✉️ Email | jonkurpis@protonmail.com