Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Library Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long, heated hearing on HB 324 exposes sharp divisions over school library review, appeals and penalties
Summary
House Bill 324 would remove K‑12 education from an obscenity‑exemption and create a statutory complaints and appeal process for parents who deem instructional or library materials age‑inappropriate; the Senate Education Committee heard hours of opposing testimony.
Representative Glenn Cordelli opened testimony on House Bill 324, saying the bill would remove K‑12 education from the state obscenity exemption and create a statutory complaints process that allows parents to object to age‑inappropriate materials and, if necessary, seek remedies up to a civil action. “Currently, our state obscenity laws exempt education … this bill removes K‑12 education from that exemption,” Cordelli told the committee.
Cordelli framed the bill as a parental‑rights measure designed to ensure a clear complaint and appeal process when parents find materials they consider sexually explicit or age‑inappropriate. He said the bill would not likely result in criminal prosecutions, based on his discussions with the Attorney General, but would establish local and state review and a possible civil remedy if a district fails to follow the complaint process.
The hearing drew sustained, often emotional testimony on both sides. Parents and advocates for removal described sexually explicit passages and images in books available in some school libraries and urged the committee to adopt statutory guardrails, including citing specific passages during testimony. Several speakers said they had sought local remedies and found the process too slow or ineffective.
Opponents including school librarians, the New Hampshire Library Association, New Hampshire School Library Association and the American Federation of Teachers urged the committee to reject HB 324 or substantially narrow it. They argued that the bill’s definitions and remedies raise constitutional concerns and would invite litigation and criminal penalties against librarians and educators. “This bill should be voted inexpedient to legislate,” said Sharon Silva, a school librarian who testified the existing local policies and reconsideration processes were adequate.
The New Hampshire School Boards Association told the committee it supports a local process requirement but objected to civil‑penalty provisions and the provision that would let a parent appeal to the State Board of Education. Barrett Christina of NHSBA said the bill’s statutory definitions of sexual material and “harmful to minors” are broad and risk capturing classic literature that uses innuendo; she also objected to private monetary damages for procedural missteps.
The ACLU and constitutional advocates warned the bill’s language could sweep beyond constitutionally unprotected obscenity and chill access to protected material; Gilles Bissonnette, ACLU legal director, urged aligning any statute with existing law (RSA 5:71‑b) and with First Amendment case law, and voiced particular concern about criminal penalties and statewide review overriding local community standards.
Several speakers — parents, survivors and LGBT‑community advocates — urged the committee to preserve access to books that help students see themselves and to oppose criminalizing librarians. “Books are often our first avenue to realizing we are able to go somewhere else,” said Bellamy Rittinger, who testified in opposition. The hearing ran multiple hours with many witnesses and public comments, and concluded after members of the committee posed follow‑ups about the bill’s definitions, remedies and practical effects.
No committee action was recorded on HB 324 in the transcript; the bill generated strong disagreement over whether problems should be addressed through local policies or by a state statute with civil and criminal remedies.
