[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6630586,"mediaKeyId","2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8","parentId",2690505,"title","Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to remove library exemption in Georgia obscenity law","audioSeconds",5125,"startMs",1961000,"endMs",7086000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8&start=1961&end=7086","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8/thumbnail_1961000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6630586/Georgia/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-bill-to-remove-library-exemption-in-Georgia-obscenity-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630586-06cef38313abe9ef5f4c166899c6fa62/orig.mp4?Expires=1771054412&Signature=OjAnyXJNo7q-2CukVIDDbd7VgosxPk9Ivsy2QHaz-GV~ud4vRwc8j0r2RRb8~9ZZcdwVIueIXPwWC-DhHNkZN6A1jYOJFRhxI3XUpVKBnr2EKqKZB-iFHITMMgVJz2FCv54VjFJ7UaP1MkRJj0gDG8a4eVSO10ETw4A9~tSyTaoIMURoHW-StYRiP4gfn3igIjQiiJ935uQLB3t2nBzLj3e0m4HhpGgWsBZv4-RE4uGQTHyjTmtzaOzc8CS4u1TAuhlU7fHhZsPqiUzLGvUYaVFGxXJRHH71gxmO13n-TQPdB~vS-A69N1trmg5hUI6CdauQLf3Xguon0b6dQtvCKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of Georgia ","date","2025-03-19T15:11:37.97Z","article","At a Judiciary committee hearing, lawmakers considered Senate Bill 74, which would remove an exception in Georgia's obscenity statute that currently exempts public libraries from certain provisions of OCGA 16-12-103.

Supporters, led on the floor by Senator Burns, said the bill \"does not change the current Georgia obscenity law\" and \"does not ban any book or any library material,\" but instead would require libraries to follow the same statute as other Georgians and to take reasonable steps to restrict minors' access to material the code defines as harmful. \"This is not punitive,\" Burns said; \"it's designed to protect children.\"

Proponents told the committee that the statute at issue dates back to the late 1960s and that the library exception was inserted in 1984; Burns said the proposal would align Georgia with a majority of other states and would add an affirmative defense for library workers who make \"a good faith attempt to identify and remove from access to minors all physical or electronically harmful material.\" He described several procedural elements the bill would require, including posting the boards' processes online and offering clear predetermination opportunities so prospective licensees (in a separate bill discussed the same day) could learn whether past records would bar them from a profession.

Opponents warned of unintended consequences and potential constitutional challenges. Sarah Hunt Blackwell of the ACLU of Georgia said the bill's insertion of the word \"knowingly\" creates a lower mental-state threshold than \"intentional\" and could make criminal charges easier to bring against librarians. \"SB 74 not only threatens the constitutional right of free speech, but also imposes undue criminal liability on librarians, creating a chilling effect,\" Blackwell said, citing a 2024 federal district court ruling that struck down similar provisions in Arkansas.

Dozens of citizens, parents, educators and library professionals testified in two-minute statements. Former and current library workers and media specialists said libraries already use established, multi-person selection and reconsideration processes and that criminal liability would chill professional judgment. A retired school library media specialist said those local selection committees and school criteria are \"a very high standard\" and warned the bill would push media specialists to pre-censor. By contrast, parents and advocacy groups argued that some materials currently shelved in children's sections include explicit images or descriptions and that the law should not leave libraries exempted from enforcement.

Committee members asked multiple process and clarity questions: how the mental-state element \"knowingly\" would be proved in practice, who would bring charges, whether books widely available in bookstores but contested in libraries would be treated differently and whether the felony/misdemeanor classifications in the existing code are appropriate for employees who are following local policy. Several members suggested drafting changes or a narrower penalty scheme; the sponsor said he would consider cleanup edits but repeatedly stated the intent was to make libraries comply with the existing statute rather than to target librarians.

After roughly 30 public witnesses and extended questioning, the chair suspended further testimony and directed parties to meet off the record and attempt to merge competing substitute language before the committee resumes consideration. The hearing was recessed with plans to reconvene later in the week.

Votes and formal committee action: no final committee vote was taken on SB 74 at this hearing; the committee paused debate to allow stakeholders and sponsors to negotiate substitute language and to return with revised text.

What happens next: committee staff will schedule follow-up consideration after parties submit merged substitute language; opponents signaled they are prepared to litigate if the bill becomes law and were explicit that parts of the measure may face First Amendment challenges.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judiciary Non-Civil 03.19.25","oneSentenceSummary","At a Judiciary committee hearing, lawmakers considered Senate Bill 74, which would remove a statutory exception allowing public libraries to be treated differently under Georgia's obscenity statute (OCGA 16-12-103).","taxTitle","Judiciary, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Georgia","taxId",17225,"location","Georgia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6630577,"Defense counsel warns mandated competency hearings could invade privileged communications and shift DBHDD resources",970,1776000,2746000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8&start=1776&end=2746","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8/thumbnail_1776000.jpg","/articles/6630577/Georgia/Defense-counsel-warns-mandated-competency-hearings-could-invade-privileged-communications-and-shift-DBHDD-resources","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630577-74c4df89759fdc2d8b157de581734545/orig.mp4?Expires=1771054412&Signature=Y6rnIMqJ4p-VlTzLVhKviWka9nlKRYlgpHuvYJzgEWHyLaYAXOVo1UMTjLHl5UWnY6p7nx0RhOQQzAozovP3mpj~1Ya4m~1u7zMH6eYu9kgNTTMMx3MkOzAdRsXG4J2HAWXUz2mK-lMFlYsjz8kwWA5tvHyC7WfszCMSC6czaDgHN308FEcsnWEsVdbRuVT4sYad2JSH-NgtaELdD1ScPVGTzHLSFKGCQrxZdXyDWd0ttzt1SXC6H9j0UUwcZmbb-OXFJ21~uoFHtaFyIVq5rE29uyXJP2lbeqoQ7onQ1b2u4XQto4uWMCYCCnMNZHXKNzhVywzfMOfOw5zhpZ2VOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During committee consideration of proposed changes to how mental-competency information is handled in criminal cases, defense counsel testified at length that a mandated hearing requirement would jeopardize privileged defense communications and raise due-process concerns.

\"Trigger this mandated hearing, that alone provides the state a glimpse into our trial strategy, which is protected and privileged and ought to be,\" the defense counsel said, arguing the current practice of ex parte communications and discretionary court orders protects privileged material and avoids making the inquiry adversarial in most circuits. Counsel added: \"There is no precedent for allowing the state to participate in a gatekeeping function of this sort that is meant to be under the court's purview. It violates the notions of fundamental fairness to the accused.\"

Witnesses and committee members discussed the practical consequences of imposing a mandatory hearing whenever information suggesting incompetency is made known. Counsel and others said the change would likely increase hearings, pull resources from DBHDD, and could paradoxically lengthen defendants' stays in custody rather than speed case resolution. \"You're shifting where the money's being spent instead of spending it at DBHDD to increase their resources to address this issue,\" defense counsel said, adding that the requirement could chill lawyers from raising competency concerns for fear of creating evidentiary exposure that might harm the client.

Committee members probed the current statutory text and process. Defense counsel referenced statutory lines in the draft, saying the language at \"line 44\" currently allows courts discretion to order evaluations if a defendant files a motion, whereas the new language in section 1 would require hearings \"if information is made known\" and thus create a mandatory hearing trigger. Members asked whether the subcommittee language the panel adopted the prior week would avoid mandating hearings; the counsel said the subcommittee language had been intended to preserve court discretion and allow ex parte consideration in many cases.

Several members asked for technical clarifications. The chair suggested the parties (sponsors, prosecutors and defense counsel) meet offline to merge competing substitutes and return to the committee with agreed language. The chair then suspended testimony and directed that the bill be taken up again after the parties confer.

No formal committee vote occurred on this item at the hearing; committee leadership asked staff to arrange off-the-record meetings and to bring merged substitute language back to the committee for further debate.

","At a Judiciary committee hearing, defense counsel and others warned that a proposed mandate for hearings when competency concerns are raised would risk revealing privileged defense strategy, chill counsel's duties, and shift scarce behavioral-health resources away from the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD).",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6630581,"Committee advances licensing reform to limit use of criminal records in occupational licensing",693,1679000,2372000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8&start=1679&end=2372","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2690505-aab651dea92d5c9bedefa1dce1b124f8/thumbnail_1679000.jpg","/articles/6630581/Georgia/Committee-advances-licensing-reform-to-limit-use-of-criminal-records-in-occupational-licensing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630581-178fb596f64f6fc234bc04cc92af4419/orig.mp4?Expires=1771054412&Signature=YcmDGRdqhXspebxiBOnXvbVSVoohBSWO4a-TtWbtzlfcoQ3DWq0HEUHcDR2gGgaAkQYU8ZTnZaVEE6aXtDWfVnfr68xiFg1R1Zk6VneezKUuImLTCR345~OoCeU0pLzqYR88CEmcY1x1wFbzZpsdkK3IuowUIH2Yb5y2xs6hXa9O-I7QXzQiLwg0NJofZpN0WnDnbObJOWsVwBtRXeJQSX-HOcFTJyqwujIQNb5FIS~LhECsnZyuyGuVzhxMyh5kmK-GVyueNf62AjoJIHUYF6wYsPSwsHuitoljeAGvkwiJ27fQMOSGIC7c1~GI0eue33rGWoch1EKuMsaB-rj6Kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Judiciary committee reviewed and moved forward Senate Bill 207, a multi-part licensing reform measure that sponsors said aims to standardize how occupational boards use criminal records in licensing decisions.

The presenter described SB 207 as a 95-page bill that \"deals with how our occupational licensing boards address criminal records,\" noting it would require a direct and substantial nexus between an applicant's past crimes and the duties of the licensed occupation before a board could deny a license. The sponsor illustrated the principle with an example: \"If I have a DUI from 10 years ago, should that keep me from being a plumber?\" he asked. \"But if I have a theft conviction, should I go work in a long-term care facility?\" The bill would require boards to make written findings when denying licenses, offer an administrative appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act and post predetermination procedures on board websites so applicants can check eligibility before investing in training.

Supporters told the committee the bill grew from a multi-stakeholder working group and is backed by the Georgia Justice Project, the Georgia Chamber and other business and faith organizations. The sponsor said the bill's intent is both to prevent unnecessarily barring qualified workers and to increase public transparency about how criminal records affect licensure.

Committee members asked hypotheticals about the nexus test and whether certain convictions would bar particular jobs; the sponsor said the bill leaves determinations to boards while guaranteeing an applicant a predetermination process and an administrative appeal. One member suggested additional cleanup amendments; the sponsor acknowledged a few final non-substantive edits and said he was \"happy to answer any questions.\" Later in the hearing the committee moved SB 207 forward to the next stage and sent it to rules.

The committee also handled other bills that day; earlier the panel had similarly approved Senate Bill 42 by voice vote. At one point during consideration of SB 207 the chair noted competing substitutes and asked parties to meet offline to merge language; the bill was later presented and the motion to pass carried.

Action taken: the committee voted to report SB 207 favorably and to forward the bill to Rules for further consideration; no roll-call vote totals were recorded in the transcript.

","Lawmakers advanced a 95-page licensing reform bill (Senate Bill 207) that would require licensing boards to find a direct nexus between past criminal conduct and job duties before denying a license, add a predetermination option and create an appeal process under the Administrative Procedures Act.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears hours of testimony on bill to remove library exemption in Georgia obscenity law

Defense counsel warns mandated competency hearings could invade privileged communications and shift DBHDD resources

Committee advances licensing reform to limit use of criminal records in occupational licensing