Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Materials Obscenity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill removing public‑institution exemption in obscenity law after heated debate
Summary
House Bill 12-39 passed 38-32. The bill removes an exemption that treated publicly funded institutions differently under South Dakota's laws on dissemination of material harmful to minors and obscenity. Lawmakers sharply disagreed over whether the change criminalizes librarians and how schools should respond to challenged books.
The South Dakota House approved House Bill 12-39 by a vote of 38-32, a bill that removes an existing statutory exemption for publicly funded institutions from certain provisions governing material "harmful to minors" and obscenity.
Representative Soy, the bill's sponsor, told the House the change would hold public institutions — including school and public libraries — to the same standards as private entities and individuals. The sponsor cited examples of titles parents consider inappropriate, said other states have adopted similar changes without prosecutions of librarians, and urged colleagues to "hold our publicly funded institutions to the same standard that apply to everyone else." Soy said 12 other states have removed comparable exemptions.
Opponents and some supporters expressed alarm about criminal penalties in current statute. Representative Mortensen said the bill "makes a pathway to send librarians to jail," noting the relevant criminal provisions are in Title 22 and can carry up to a class 1 misdemeanor (a fine up to $2,000 and up to one year in jail). "We're locking up librarians," he said, arguing the change does not address how book policies are made and could punish staff who unknowingly circulate material.
Several members questioned how the law would apply in practice. Representative Peterson cited South Dakota Codified Law 22-24-28 (disseminating material harmful to minors) and said the statute criminalizes dissemination without requiring intent, raising concerns that a librarian could face criminal exposure after an inadvertent checkout. Sponsor Soy responded that the bill does not ban books outright and that school boards would be required to consider challenges because the law would apply to them; she also said states that removed the exemption had not prosecuted librarians.
Other members described personal experiences: Representative Weems said his family used librarians for recommendations for years without issue and worried the bill could criminalize routine functions such as shelving or checking out books. Representative Kason said he was embarrassed to be considering criminalizing librarians on the House floor and urged a no vote. Supporters, including Representative Hughes and others, argued obscenity is not First Amendment-protected speech for minors and that the state has a duty to protect children from material that is "patently offensive" and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
After extended debate and multiple points of order and questions from members, the clerk reported ayes 38, nays 32 and the bill was declared passed. The bill changes statutory exemptions; it does not by itself identify specific titles to be removed from libraries or schools. The transcript records endorsements in committee by groups including Family Voice Action, South Dakota Catholic Conference, Concerned Women for America, FAIR SD, and Moms for Liberty; it also notes that some large school systems did not actively oppose the bill in committee materials.
