Educators and Librarians could face felony charges under proposed Ohio House Bill

Columbus OH - Ohio House Bill 556, introduced by Republican State Rep. Adam Mathews, is causing a stir among educators and library organizations due to its ambiguous language regarding 'obscene material' and 'obscene performances.' The bill proposes criminal charges for teachers and school librarians who distribute or create such materials but fails to clearly define what constitutes 'obscenity.'

According to the text of the bill, it specifically prohibits educators from creating, reproducing, publishing, promoting, or advertising 'obscene material,' as well as producing 'obscene performances.' Those found in violation could face felony charges, including up to one year in prison and fines up to $2,500. Additionally, a felony conviction could lead to a permanent criminal record, affecting future employment prospects.

The lack of a clear definition of 'obscenity' has raised significant concerns. The Ohio Education Association and the Ohio Federation of Teachers have criticized the bill's vagueness, with Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, questioning the necessity of the new legislation given existing laws. In an interview with the Ohio Capital Journal, Cropper expressed fears about the bill's potential misuse by bad faith actors. “We also question whether there is need for this new bill or if existing laws can address the concerns behind HB 556,” Cropper said in a statement. “We plan to discuss this bill and these concerns with legislators and with our members.”

Moreover, the bill's exclusion of the term 'educational' from its language further complicates interpretations of what materials might be acceptable. In response to these concerns, the Ohio Library Council plans to meet with the bill's sponsor to discuss the implications for 'school district public libraries' included in the legislation.

Critics argue that without a clear definition of 'obscenity,' HB 556 could lead to subjective and potentially harmful interpretations, threatening the ability of educators to provide a comprehensive education.

Many people fear that a likely outcome of this bill would be to scare librarians and teachers into removing anything that could be considered inappropriate to a more conservative community member. Schools and communities already deal with examples of one unreasonable parent raising an objection over an individual interpretation, and this lack of officially defined obscenity could lead to a felony. Additionally, community libraries frequented by minors could see books not intended for minors removed from the general selection over fears of violating the bill, resulting in a loss of material for adults as well.

Some legal experts claim there is precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court on the definition of obscenity. The court has made it clear that you can’t classify work as obscene on the basis of one passage or one scene in a 1973 ruling in Miller v. California.

For the most complete Logan County news, sports, and community event coverage, visit thecapsuleapp.com.

Photo byPhoto by Element5 Digital

a 1973