bounty laws – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Instead Of Banning Books, Idaho Library Decides To Ban Kids In Response To New Law On ‘Inappropriate Books’

from the no-books-for-you dept

Public libraries are supposed to be places for communities to gather and learn, with an important focus on being a place for kids to gain access to information. But thanks to a moral panic in the GOP about “indoctrination” in libraries, it seems that at least one library has decided to shut its door to children.

A public library in a tiny Idaho mountain community announced on Facebook that it is no longer allowing minors to enter its facilities and check out books, citing a new law adopted by the state legislature. Donnelly Public Library, in the roughly 250-person town of Donnelly, Idaho, will still offer after-school and summer learning programs for local youth.

But it’s now an adults-only establishment—literally.

“Donnelly Public Library was deeply saddened by the passing of [House Bill] 710,” the library posted. “Unfortunately, the ambiguous language in the legislation leaves us no options but to make some very drastic changes. In order to comply with the legislation we will be transitioning our Library to be an adult only library as of July 1.”

House Bill (HB) 710 allows parents or guardians to sue any school or public library for carrying materials that could be viewed as age-inappropriate and obscene. Libraries have to move books and materials or face lawsuits. Donnelly Public Library is a small facility in a literal log cabin.

“Donnelly [Public] Library is only 1024 [square foot],” said the library. “Our size prohibits us from separating our ‘grown up’ books to be out of the accessible range of children.”

Idaho’s Republican-controlled state legislature adopted HB 710, and Gov. Brad Little signed it into law in April. The law’s proponents argue it is meant to give parents more oversight of what their children are reading while doubly serving as a law to protect minors from viewing potentially disturbing images. Entering force on July 1, 2024, HB 710 features a definition of obscene materials for minors that critics believe to be broad and, per the library, “ambiguous.”

“‘Sexual conduct’ means any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, the breast,” reads a portion of the bill. The law provides for broad assumptions regarding material that is potentially “obscene” or “harmful to minors” for simply dealing with the subject matter of sexuality or the human body’s biological reproductive functions. Parents or guardians can arbitrarily apply these definitions against libraries accused of “promoting” material that is supposedly harmful to minors. In the law, “promoting” refers to virtually any act of selling, loaning out, and distributing books, DVDs, CDs, or other media types. The law also prohibits live performances that meet the definition of being harmful to minors. It is pretty encompassing.

What’s even more nuts is that HB 710 is a bounty law. A “bounty law” allows private parties to bring civil complaints against entities for alleged violations of the law. If a judge determines the law is broken, the private parties are entitled to predetermined sums as compensation. HB 710 creates a civil right of action to sue schools and public libraries for promoting obscene materials to minors. If the parties suing the institutions prevail, they’re given $250 in statutory damages.

They could be entitled to compensation for the actual, alleged damages of having their child exposed to a book viewed as violating HB 710. For small library systems like Donnelly Public Library, litigation prospects could be financially catastrophic and spatially restrictive. The law also allows county prosecutors and the Idaho state attorney general to bring civil action against schools and public libraries. Due to this, it isn’t that surprising that this public library is now adults-only. Nothing will be accomplished. Here’s why. HB 710 is grossly unconstitutional.

Proponents will argue the law doesn’t ban books or the ability for adults to access materials.

Instead, they’ll say it gives parents more say in what children can read. That sounds all well and good, but a claim of such a law empowering parental rights is naïve. State lawmakers have essentially deputized pissed-off voters who believe in conspiracy theories about the nation’s youth being indoctrinated in public schools and libraries by leftist educators and librarians.

Individuals ultimately become state actors incentivized by promises of guaranteed monies to challenge books and their locations that probably aren’t even “pornographic” or “obscene.”

Anything that even remotely deals with sexuality or gender in any capacity could be challenged. Such challenges would violate the First Amendment rights of authors, parents, and children — but, most importantly, librarians, educators, and administrators. I can’t say this would happen exactly in the case of the Donnelly Public Library.

However, the fact that this library is so concerned with the beefed up liabilities under HB 710 that the library district board had to restrict the age of access for its patrons speaks to how unjust laws that significantly restrict and regulate libraries can genuinely be. There is no regard for the unintended consequences, which could have a greater impact on the state than the intent of the law.

A rich body of research shows that a child’s ability to access a school or public library positively impacts their development.

In some studies, the role of the librarian in rural communities carries as much weight as a teacher or other trusted adult.

While it is true that Donnelly Public School isn’t canceling its after-school and summer reading programs, restricting year-round access to this library to just adults could come at a cost. I believe that having the ability to read is a fundamental human right, especially for teens. I might not be the best voice to discuss the rights of youth, but it’s evident this is a product of fear-mongering to gain power among Republicans is out of political gain.

It is the Republicans, in the case of HB 710, that are harming the children just so a powerful minority of individuals could appease their political backers. No matter who it is or how they are held, everyone should be able to access the information they want and need.

Michael McGrady covers the legal and tech side of the online porn business, among other topics.

Filed Under: book bans, book burning, bounty laws, donnelly, donnelly public library, free speech, hb 710, idaho, inappropriate books

from the bounty-laws-suck dept

A federal district judge in Louisiana dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state’s mandatory age verification statute in order to access adult content on the internet. The lawsuit was brought by the Free Speech Coalition and stakeholders in and adjacent to the adult entertainment industry.

Plaintiffs intended to block the age verification statute passed by the state legislature last year and entered into force on January 1, 2023. Due to technical grounds, U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan sided with the defendants – state officials, including Attorney General Jeff Landry – in a motion to dismiss because of a lack of jurisdiction. The age verification law was structured as a so-called ‘bounty’ law, meaning that state officials are barred from enforcing it, but anyone else in the state can bring suit against a website for failing to implement the age verification. State courts are the responsible venues to hear private causes of action brought against adult platforms that don’t follow the age verification law. This means that the only “enforcement” comes in the format of a private civil enforcement action entitling the private party resolution in the format of damages, and not by a government official.

We’ve seen this before. A similar age verification law targeting adult content was implemented in Utah. The Free Speech Coalition and many of the same plaintiffs sued in a federal district court, but the case was dismissed on technical grounds, with that judge citing existing case law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021)that federal lawsuits against government officials that are meant to challenge laws that are designed to only be enforced by private individuals, or ‘bounty hunters,’ cannot advance. Mike Masnick wrote an insightful analysis on this in August.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson challenged a controversial Texas law passed by legislators in 2021, Senate Bill 8 or the Texas Heartbeat Act, that questioned whether abortion activists were able to enjoin state officials with an injunction blocking enforcement of the law that essentially compels private parties to sue people who are suspected of “aiding and abetting” an abortion.

The conservative high court ceded to the states’ rights crowd and ruled that Texas state officials are protected by sovereign immunity. This is the standard the Free Speech Coalition and other plaintiffs failed to meet in both the Utah and Louisiana lawsuits, according to both judges. The coalition appealed the Utah ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. It appears they will do the same in response to this ruling in Louisiana. Mike Stabile, director of public affairs for the Free Speech Coalition, said that “while we disagree and will appeal, it’s not at all a ruling on the merits of the law, which are still clearly unconstitutional.”

But this is the fucked up part: if you know your federal judicial districts, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is covered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the appeals court equivalent to the short bus).

The Fifth Circuit is currently hearing oral arguments in the Free Speech Coalition’s case brought against Texas for its age verification law that requires public health labeling. A panel of judges for the circuit issued an administrative stay on a preliminary injunction issued by a Texas federal district judge indicating that the law violates the First Amendment rights of adult users and the sites. The stay essentially allowed the age verification law to go into effect despite the litigation.

Hopefully, the Fifth Circuit doesn’t keep “Fifth Circuit-ing.” I will spare you the rant on why age verification laws in their current format are violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. I will leave you with this, though: Porn is a human right, and blocking it in this format is wrong.

*mic drop*

Michael McGrady covers the tech side of the online porn business. He is the contributing editor for AVN.com

Filed Under: 5th circuit, adult content, age verification, bounty laws, jurisdiction, louisiana, private right of action, sovereign immunity, standing
Companies: free speech coalition