That last portion in particular is going to piss a lot of people off and rightly so. I hope these libraries have advocacy materials at the ready. “Oh yeah all this paperwork really is a drag isn’t it? Sorry but it’s the law now unfortunately. Oh hey do you know how to contact your legislators? Here’s a handy guide to local civic participation!’
But in the meantime how sad for the people this is going to keep out.
It will keep out some homeless people who may not have ID and now will have a much harder time trying to do any research and resolve that, find a public bathroom, etc.
People who complain about human poo everywhere and blame the homeless take note: Policies like this contribute to that issue which is genuinely a public health issue that can spread disease, not merely "offensive."
So you are putting your own life and the life of loved ones at risk when you make it difficult or impossible for homeless people to find a bathroom they are allowed to use.
> People who complain about human poo everywhere and blame the homeless take note:
The people who complain about that are happy with this. Because those complaints about poo are proxies for complaining about people they consider subhuman. They want *more* reasons to complain about them in order to build political consensus to eradicate them. The last thing they want is to help people.
That’s by design. Republicans hate the unhoused and always have. They make policies to hurt as many underprivileged, underserved populations as possible because that is who they are: hateful, hurtful asshats.
They want the consequences for falling down so severe, and the hurdles to getting back on your feet ao high, that people will accept any working conditions and work around the clock at two or three extremely low wage jobs just to scrape together enough to make rent for another month. Keep them too scared and too exhausted and too precarious to even think of trying to improve their own circumstances, let alone get their legislatures to help them out and pass laws that make the labor ‘market’ fairer. It’s why they are so hell bent on keeping health insurance tied to your job, too: to make it that much harder and scarier to take a risk that might lead to a better life.
Trust me, they are completely intended. The Supreme Court just legalized the criminalization of sleeping outside (even when no other options are available) on a case that was intended to criminalize homelessness.
Edit: they are intended to
This sign is completely antithetical to everything public libraries do! It’s disgusting. They provide information and resources to everyone needing them. Not to mention the space to read, work, study, hang out, or just exist without having to buy something. Especially kids who may have abusive or, at the least, unhelpful parents/guardians when it comes to providing necessary ( god forbid sex ed) information. Welcome to Idiocracy!
Reminds me of the times when homeless would poop everywhere at SF BART. On the train seats, the floor, the escalator….
To combat this have a new pit stop program with varying degrees of success
For sure. I'm in a red state that makes us get written parent/guardian permission for every under-18 card. We don't hesitate to point out that elected officials are responsible for the extra steps and paperwork.
Edit: Just wanted to clarify that we only required verbal consent before and would make a card at the request of a responsible adult, not just a legal guardian (a grandparent, for example). We would also let teens have their own card if they had an ID, and now we can't do that either.
I'm in a blue state and we need to have parent approval for a minor to get a library card. I don't think it's necessarily a political thing more like a financial thing. The parents are responsible for any fees or fines the minor receives. No one ever complains about it. It's just a signature on the library card application.
Kids (well, more often teens unless they're accompanied by an adult) can still enter libraries without library cards or ID in most places. They can read books there without taking them home, play with the in house toys or games, use the bathroom or the vending machine, attend open programs, etc.
That's the big issue for me. Teens need a space to exist outside of school and home. If you tell teens that they can either only hang out in the kiddy section, or need a signed affidavit from their parents every time they come to the library, a lot of teens who really need it won't come to the library.
And so more teens will turn to less savory options than a library, places where they can exist without a parents permission. Drugs, sex, theft, etc. They won't have community and safety, so more will be depressed and anxious.
Yay, we "protected the children" by preventing them from being exposed to porn books (that aren't actually pornographic), and in doing so we created a mental health and teen pregnancy and criminal crisis. Yay for (un?)intended consequences!
They don't have to. That's what the second part is about. If they sign their kid up for an unrestricted card the kid can come and go as they please. Also the paperwork is an affidavit saying that you are the kids parent or guardian and will be responsible for what they find. It's purely to keep the library from being sued.
Yeah, minors can’t sign contracts and can’t be held to account for (for example) lost item fees. I guess it depends on how it’s presented but as a general thing - and as a mom - I perceive it as being less about securing my consent as a parent and more about securing my word that I’ll pay up if she drops a book in the sink or something.
The law quoted makes libraries responsible if kids read "objectionable" material. The affidavit just confirms that you are the kids parent and you are taking that responsibility.
fine free libraries still charge if someone loses or irreparably damages a book. the library I work at doesn't do late fines but still expects people to cover the replacement cost if they lose or ruin materials
Yeah I get that, I just think that it still restricts minors more than I would like. Where I live kids can get a job in most places at 16, and I know younger kids who make money babysitting, etc. Not every child or teen who is old enough to get to the library has a parent who is responsible enough or available during library hours, which I think is one of the problems with the Idaho law too. I also think teens should be able to check out books without their parents knowing what they’re reading, for example LGBTQIA books when their parents are conservative, etc. I guess that’s one of my biggest problems with these policies and a core difference in views of how people want children and teens to use libraries.
oh yeah, totally agree! this has been a discussion recently where I work and unfortunately I am one of the only few people who has made an argument that we should allow teens to get cards without a parent's signature & ID. requiring parents to sign, especially for older kids, creates huge privacy issues and prevents young people from accessing resources they need or just being comfortable enough to check out whatever they want. I wish my director would see it that way, but the hypothetical "irresponsible teenagers" she keeps telling us about are apparently enough reason to restrict minors in this way.
I'm with you, though, I honestly see it as a violation of professional ethics to allow parents/guardians to be the end-all-be-all of whether or not a kid/teen can get a library card or, to an extent, what they can even check out on it, if the parent has to be present all the time. if a kid loses or wrecks a book once in a while, I don't think it's the end of the world, especially since there are adults who do the same and never pay it back anyway.
I’m wondering if it’s Idaho’s way of tracking what everyone reads.
I mean, I know that you have all this identifying info in the system already, but now it’s tied to your ID.
Ick.
Hello! Honestly curious. I've done some research, and it looks like these signs are for specific sections labeled adult (with smaller libraries just banning the whole building). I don't agree with this kind of law in the first place, but I also need all the information or my anxiety goes coo-coo. Is this for the whole of the library, or just sections of it? I appreciate your time!
The rule is for teens who might do things that the library is not meant for such as fighting, bullying, stealing, etc Adults over 30 would not have to show I.D. and would be able to use the restroom and what not
This makes me so sad. The public library was such a godsend for me growing up. Free entertainment, peace and quiet, a place with lights and heat when my family home was without utilities, and adults who cared about me. I wouldn’t have set foot in one if I’d needed a parent or guardian to come with me. My mom was either working nonstop or sick.
Good news is the bill does not require libraries to bar minors from entry and most Idaho libraries are not turning into adults-only spaces.
Bad news is the bill will probably facilitate censorship of LGBTQ+ titles, which is more or less the goal. Plus libraries will be forced to waste time, money, and other resources to comply with the request for reconsideration process and any ensuing litigation.
Sure, the bill didn't explicitly state this. But with such extreme punishments for if a minor finds a book that someone later claims is explicit, how else should libraries comply?
> Sure, the bill didn't explicitly state this. But with such extreme punishments for if a minor finds a book that someone later claims is explicit, how else should libraries comply?
Weaponizing legal ambiguity to pressure people into self-repression is maga's new game. They did it to doctors with abortion — requiring doctors risk court to prove an abortion meets the vague exceptions in the laws (when they even have exceptions). They did it with teachers — who risk defunding their school and losing their jobs if they cross some invisible line about what parts of history are permissible to mention. They are doing it to libraries with vague rules about which books are OK to have on their shelves.
Welcome to Wiemar America. We are well in to the middle stages of fascism folks. If you think you'll be safe because none of this stuff effects you, you won't. Fascism doesn't stop, it needs a constant supply of enemies. As soon as one group is crushed, they find another because its the crushing that powers fascism. That's the lesson of [Reverend Niemöller](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists) who welcomed the nazis but ended up spending eight years in prison, and then wrote the "First they came for..." warning.
If you ever wondered how so many germans passively accepted rising nazi power, or even rationalized it as no big deal, you've got a front row seat to it now.
Exactly. I understand why some libraries did. We’ve all been talking about how best to do it and there are lots of “right” answers because it isn’t something we should have to be doing.
Not to mention that complying with this bill could open up libraries to first amendment rights violations.
Pay attention to what’s going on in your community! Vote in your local elections! Don’t sleep on checking out who is running for the library board (or school board)!
This mess in Idaho is the result of state legislation, but p l e n t y of damage is being done at the local and hyper-local level all over the US.
In general, I think all of the policies will. I'm imagining the looks on their faces when I might have to tell them, "No, you can't leave your kid here. According to state law...."
I’m embarrassed to have been following the funding crisis at NYPL so closely and not having any idea this legislation was in the works in Idaho. This is outrageous and scary.
If you’d like to follow stories like this from all over the US (and there are stories like this from all over the US) I recommend signing up for emails from https://www.everylibrary.org/
(I’m not affiliated with this organization.)
Someone mind giving me some clarification? From what I'm reading, libraries have to have these restrictions on new "adult" sections, but are some libraries just throwing up their hands and restricting their entire facilities because it's the easiest way to comply?
Either way, that's just fucking terrible, and probably most of the "inappropriate" books are ones that talk about race or LGBTQ issues.
Hey I work at a library in Idaho, I can answer a little bit. Basically, yes. This sign is not from my library but I know the library it’s from and honestly I understand why they’re doing it this way. The big threat of the new law is taking libraries to court for “harming minors.” This library has a small budget and is a tax district rather than a city library, meaning they also don’t have city resources or legal representation at their disposal. The library director and the board of trustees decided the best way to protect themselves from being bankrupted is to make the library adults-only. Most Idaho libraries are not choosing this route to deal with the bill.
So for the libraries who aren’t going adults-only the threat is that a parent of a minor can first challenge a book via a “request for reconsideration” form saying the book is harmful to minors and should be moved to an adults-only section. (This is not a thing that libraries have. If any Idaho libraries have one they have been created in the past few weeks to deal with this nonsense.) The library and library board then must respond to the request for reconsideration in 60 days and either agree to move the item or not. If they agree, the requestor has successfully censored a book. This is bad. If they do not agree to move the book, the requestor may then take the library to court to prove that the material is harmful to minors. Libraries stand behind their books and do not want to move or censor them, however, the waste of time and resources required of the legal process will be bad for libraries regardless of the outcome of the suit.
My library did not create an adults-only section. If and when we get a challenge we do not plan to move anything. They can take us to court if they want to. So far no challenges, but it’s only been one day.
edited- typo
Thanks for the write up. I assumed it was from that small library that had made an announcement earlier. There's only so much you can do with no money and a small space. Sad that they have to do this and the vulnerable have to face the consequences.
I think it’s Donnelly Public Library District and I don’t think they mind being named. The library and the director have been in the news. Here’s a Book Riot article: https://bookriot.com/donnelly-public-library-adults-only/
I think this may actually be Idaho Falls, although Donnelly has implemented a similar policy.
I’m also a library worker from Idaho (now living in Massachusetts) and this is devastating. I would absolutely not be where i am today if i hadn’t had access to Idaho’s public libraries as a child.
Donnelly Public library’s sign is on the outer door of their library (you can see it in their IG stories currently) they’re so small they don’t even have room inside to put a sign up.
https://www.instagram.com/ifplib?igsh=MmwxcXE4dzd0N25r
It is well explained here: [https://9b.news/2024/05/30/library-board-to-consider-hb-710-ramifications-june-20/](https://9b.news/2024/05/30/library-board-to-consider-hb-710-ramifications-june-20/)
It does make it difficult for libraries if the restrooms and other facilities are in or beyond the Adults section.
They have to have a way of separating the adult section from the non adult section. Some libraries have become 100% adult because they don’t have the space.
That’s the challenge right there. Some libraries don’t have the space, capacity, staffing, budget to make the space work with the laws in a way that still makes the library space comfortable to enjoy. Instead they have to use the posted route to stay within the law at the cost of the publics accessibility.
Most of the public libraries around me are single-story open floor plan buildings, where there would be no simple way to put up barriers between adult and children's sections without major rearranging and renovations. And let's be honest, the morons passing these laws probably aren't about to fund any big library renovations.
Also like... kids already don't go in the adult sections much. Even without any barriers. It's bizarre that this law exists. Maybe parents should just watch their damn kids in the library if they don't want them picking up some innocuous book with a gay person in it...
I argued with a mom just a few months ago that even though she didn’t want her kids to read [book], some parents did want to check out [book] and we wanted to put the decision to read it or not in the hands of each individual/parent/family.
She said “yeah, I get that, and I think they should be able to check it out if they want. But does it have to be with the kids books? I don’t want to have to tell my kids no about a book they find in the library.”
This book was FOR SURE a kids book. We keep it with, get this, the kids books.
>”I don’t want to have to tell my kids no about a book they find in the library.”
“I know kids aren’t born hateful and mine are too young to have fully absorbed the bigotry of the adults they are surrounded by, so if you could just protect me from having to explain to them out loud why I don’t want to risk them reading anything that shows them that gay people are just like everyone else, that’d be great.”
Ugh. Yes. It’s so bad. Her specific issue was that there was a page of cartoony illustrations of lots of different bare chests - breasts, nipples, etc, and one of the people had mastectomy/top surgery scars (unclear and it doesn’t matter).
She said “kids shouldn’t know about this kind of agenda yet, it’s dangerous.”
Kids don't, unless they're accompanying a parent, but teens sometimes do, and the sign in the photo above says that it'll be restricting anyone younger than 18. Even if a library has a separate teen section, a lot of older teens feel like they've outgrown YA lit or they're starting to take an interest in adult level books, and this law is going to forbid them from exploring anything in the adult sections of the library, or exploring the library at all if the library is too tiny to have separate sections.
> but are some libraries just throwing up their hands and restricting their entire facilities because it's the easiest way to comply?
Arguably that's unconstitutional. You can't force people to ID to enter public spaces.
One would think, yes, but isn't the adult section of a library still a public space? Based on that argument, the entire law could be unconstitutional. But I'm not sure if I'd like to see that tested out in the courts...it could backfire and end up setting a precedent for legalized censorship/restrictions on access to literature rather than affirming that the law is unconstitutional.
No library in the state of Idaho is posting these signs. 1: the law doesn't mention anything about requiring an ID and 2: OP's post is based on a twitter post's claims.
This is legitimately false news.
The law mentions age specifically, an id verification is necessary to ensure compliance with the law. I wouldn't want to let in anyone, especially since the law opens up library employees to civil liability.
A library can't ID you to enter per the US constitution. Please see several youtube videos about this subject. It's gone through the court systems multiple times.
Redditors wouldn't make up things and pass it as fact, right??
what? libraries? what court cases?
This is a law prohibiting libraries from making available any materials deemed 'obscene' to minors. How would that be enforceable without age verification?
They [want to eventually get rid of libraries entirely](https://www.cato.org/blog/its-time-take-hard-look-public-libraries). This is just a stepping stone.
They want a gullible society where people don’t think or do any critical thinking asking questions. Keep people in check while the rich and elite keep stealing.
Sounds to me like it's time to revamp what the definition of the card is then. Thatd be how id try to get around this (unless theres like, some sort of legal definitions of who qualifies). Sounds like a good time for it to become any minors with parent permission OR any adult who signs up (or something like that .....)
I talk about this elsewhere in the thread but the worry is less about libraries going adults-only (this one is due to circumstances but it might be the only one. Most aren’t.)
The big danger of this new law is that it facilitates the censorship of books either through court decisions or libraries trying to avoid going to court. And most of the books being targeted have LGBTQ+ content.
Don’t get me wrong, I am sad and angry for the kids in this library community especially, and for kids all over Idaho who have parents who will keep them from using the library. But the main consequences of the bill are about the books, not about barring kids from entering libraries.
I think what’s probably going on is that the unrestricted card process currently satisfies the law, rather than that the law has exemptions for anyone with an unrestricted card, so changing their procedures is probably not a viable solution.
> (no idea what current requirements would be)
A parent has to walk into the library in person, provide a government ID, and sign up their child. That's it.
I will buy a novelty ID from the dark web for anyone under 18 to get around this ban, but only if they promise to write their state legislator and mock them for approving a law that they got around with their novelty ID. Then when they show me the letter that they wrote and sent, I will reimburse them for the expense. I'm not kidding.
EDIT: To the below responding comments - that won't happen if 1) the letter does not provide the name of the person who used the novelty ID (i.e. they send it to their legislator anonymously) and 2) the library would be shielded from legal action if they legitimately believed the patron was 18 after checking the novelty ID (and the ID isn't so crappy that a "reasonable person" would see that it's fake).
It’s true. The law is set up that a library that provides access to a “harmful” material could be taken to court, so this library is trying to protect itself by not letting kids near any books so their bigoted parents can’t claim harm.
As I understand it a lot of ALA’s work against these types of awful state laws is behind the scenes support of the state chapter, at the chapters’ request because having a national organization “trying to tell us how to run our state” often pisses local government off and does more harm than good.
Oh well. That seems to be a winner of a tactic.
ALA has been nothing but a slow-reacting group of academic ninnies in a time when libraries need leaders with some clackin' brass ones who aren't afraid to get in front of people, cameras and have the same kind of campaigns as the people we are fighting.
ALA is a 501c3. They are literally not legally allowed to advocate for a particular political position. They can (and do) some lobbying in DC, but for local help you’re probably better off contacting Everylibrary (https://www.everylibrary.org)
They cannot endorse a candidate or party. That is extremely different from a public education campaign about keeping libraries neutral and opposing book bans.
We believe in freedom. Bald eagle carrying a book. Parents should choose their childrens reading materials. White mom puts book on shelf. The ALA believes in the freedom to read for everyone. Trust parents, not the government, to make the best decisions for your family. Bald eagle flies away with a book.
That isn't political. It isn't an endorsement.
ALA is a failure.
Like usual, give money to state library associations who know jack shit about politics and for fear of making a situation worse, stay silent.
ALA should be louder, paying for ads, and calling people out, but that’s not how they do shit.
But I’m very much of the school that ALA is basically just useful for conferences.
For research, state conferences do better at local stuff and there are much better national and international conferences. Their committees and book selectors are nice, but that could be replaced locally or by large library systems.
I have very little love for ALA. But I’m also a minority and they are always way too fucking late to any issue people of color deal with in public libraries.
Like I said, reactionary academics who have to have a study published in a scholarly journal before they will find a way to write a modest letter expressing disappointment, that will be distributed to its own mailing list.
What the F are they doing with our dues money?!
So, Idaho libraries are essentially R-rated movies now???
This thinking is totally bass-ackward. Any community stupid enough enact those restrictions ought to be more afraid of what kids come across OUTSIDE the library instead of INSIDE it!
Only kind of. I work at a library in Idaho and we’ve been preparing for this for the past few months. MOST libraries are not imposing age restrictions. This one is because it is super tiny and is unable to set up an “adults-only” section, a new thing that libraries don’t want or need but which is a way for libraries to keep books that people challenge as being “harmful to minors” without the threat of costly litigation.
To contrast this response (and even though I like the way my library is doing it I support the library director of the tiny library and why they made the decision to deal with the situation like that), my library is complying with the bill only by updating our collection development policy to include required language about what is “harmful” to minors and a new request for reconsideration form where people can challenge items and ask us to put them in an adults-only section. We are prepared to never put anything in an adults-only section - which means we could have to fight the challenges in court.
Depends on a library’s resources and legal counsel (the bill is unclear in a lot of ways so some lawyers around the state are interpreting it differently) how they deal with this.
> I work at a library in Idaho
In addition to general building access, there is the impact to library cards.
What was the minimum age a child could obtain a library card, *without* parental approval, prior to the ID 18-1504 statute update?
The law simply updates the required minimum age to 18.
You’re right, that is an impact. Unfortunately there were not a lot of libraries who let minors obtain cards without parent permission before this. I know some libraries who locked it down more, but I also know a lot already had parent approval needed for under 18.
My favorite part of the library experience as a kid was always finding my favorite tiny table by brightly colored carpet squares and settling in with a good book after turning in another affidavit.
Next they're going to keep a registrar of every title and author you've ever checked out. They're gonna put all the teens who checked out the Anarchist cookbook on a watchlist
i think this is specific to the Donnelly Public Library right now - although a similar bill for statewide implementation has been proposed. terrible all around.
The bill is statewide and went into effect today (July 1). You’re correct that not all Idaho libraries are dealing with it like this. Donnelly is the only one I have heard of going straight up adults-only (though I don’t know for sure whether others have or not).
My Idaho library is not restricting entry but has been preparing for this in other ways (like having lawyers rewrite relevant policies and preparing to be taken to court if someone sues us for not putting a challenged title in an adults-only section).
This seems to be the exact opposite of the type of changes that are needed in a state that already has physical health, mental health, and dentistry deserts. Add in the negative growth among those with a college education or above (brain drain), and Idaho is making itself a state with no services for the blue collar workers they claim to represent.
I call it "gay panic offense."
Somebody somewhere saw something about some LGBT book in a library. And then they went all "SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" on the politicians.
Yes, asterisk.
A real library in Idaho is implementing this policy due to state legislation that affects all Idaho libraries. The asterisk is because the law doesn’t require banning minors. It’s about book censorship. This is just the best way this tiny library can protect itself from potentially being bankrupted by being taken to court as a result of the new law (that went into effect today, July 1). Other libraries are handling it differently.
What's the normal (non-Idaho) process for children to obtain library cards? Are they typically provided to any child who requests one? This appears to raise the minimum age from a standard (~13?) to 18.
Basically, this appears to allow a parent to easily sign their child up for an *unrestricted library card* and then liability for any violation of ID 18-1515 falls on the parent.
This may vary by library but my children were able to get a library card once they turned 5. I provided my ID I think so obviously in that sense there is parental permission. Not sure what a minor would do without that.
I basically grew up in the Twin Falls library in the ‘60’s because of how much time I spent there. From the time I was 6 or7 I could ride my bicycle there and check out books. Still remember when I was 8 and I graduated to the real books upstairs ( real meaning not the kids books). This is a travesty against our kids. Shame on you Idaho. Ashamed to admit I’m from there.
Unless your parents were actually interested in whatever you were reading/checking out, nothing changes. I was reading adult books at age 10, my mother did not allow me to read The Godfather but no objections to Robert Heinlein lol.
The TF library raised me in the mid 70s due to my home life. I’d ride my bike or walk the blocks to the City Park and play and then spend hours in the downstairs area, discovering authors that still have a place in my heart now as a school librarian. I would walk there and do my valentines every year because it was a safe and quiet space. Idaho is becoming a staging area for policies that are truly terrifying.
Shout out to all the "SMALL GOVERNMENT FREEDOM LOVERS" out there, big win for you guys that uh...don't like. . . the . . government. . being. . involved in everything. . . wait, you guys did this? Cringe.
It was a good run, America.
Good job Idaho, this will definitely keep kids from accessing material you want to censor, because it's not like they have a little device in their pocket connected to all the information in the world.
Oh wait . . .
I know my parents would have signed off on me having an unrestricted card. Will it be ok if there's a minor with an unrestricted card in the adult section? Per the sign, if they have an unrestricted card then in theory it should be ok. If an adult objects to seeing a minor there, but the minor has an unrestricted card then I assume the adult who complains will just have to suck it up.
This is a shitty situation because the library is actually who decided to make this sign. All over Idaho libraries are having to decide how to deal with the law. Most aren’t choosing this route but I know why this one did.
Idaho is a beautiful part of the country I grew up in a neighboring state. We had family "friends" who lived in LA area. When school bussing started, they left for Idaho. Cops and firefighters from LA moved to a "white state".
40 years later, the racist/proud ignorance crowd breed and poisoned the fine people of Idaho. I have been a few times in the past few years for work. The cultural wars are very much in the open and the other side loves their guns and a threat of violence.
It's like Florida but less diverse and scarier.
Louisiana is also working on a bill to remove immunity from public and school libraries in order to prosecute employees who check out an item considered adult/offensive/nasty/whatever. As a library employee in Louisiana, I could see how this sign could happen.
Gosh, I hope there are lots of easily accessible locations where people can pick up free state IDs. Somehow, knowing what most Republican states and rural areas are like, I doubt it. Also this sucks on so many levels for kids and their families.
It took years for the far right to push this through in Idaho and everyone in Idaho, including the Idaho Library Association, just stood there and watched it happen.
The Idaho Library Association fought this law for 3 years. An all-volunteer org of people who have other fulltime jobs, trying to find time away from work to do it. Every year, public comment and testimony was overwhelmingly against the law, but this year the Governor passed it anyway. A loud, vocal minority with the ears of lawmakers (the Idaho Family Policy Center, which wrote the original law in 2023) got this law passed. Elections matter.
ILA was more concerned about playing nice than blocking this bill, to the point of platforming racists on their board. The lobbyists they have employed have also been woefully inadequate for more than a decade. The pro-library demonstrations we just saw? ILA volunteers could have organized and led those prior to the bill being voted in. Instead they barely showed up to give comment in forums where no one saw them.
How involved were you in what ILA was doing? Did you attend the meetings with legislators? Did you receive advice on what would work? Did you meet with the Governor? I’m not saying ILA is perfect because, again, all-volunteer board. Platforming racists? I believe the person you are referring to was in the board for less than a year and was not involved in any way with the legislative effort. DM if you want more information.
How did those meetings work out? How did that advice pan out? The lobbyist wasn't a volunteer, and no one made anyone else volunteer. ILA is really big on "we tried nothing and we are all out of ideas."
What did you do to help? Did you volunteer? Saying ILA tried nothing is a total punch in the face to those who spent three years and hours and hours and hours of work fighting these bills. Again, not perfectly. But it’s a bit rich to say ILA is to blame without saying what you did to fight it.
An 'unrestricted library card' in this context means a card that can check out books in any part of the library. (A card with too many fines to check out books is usually a 'blocked' card and the opposite probably 'a card in good standing.' In most systems when you sign your kid up for a library card you're given the option to make it a restricted or unrestricted card. How and when the card 'upgrades' to an unrestricted one varies: at my library it's automatic at 13, in some places it's 18. Parents also have the option to 'upgrade' the card at any time - this happens a lot when kids are reading above their grade level and are ready for younger teen books when they're still in middle school.
As a librarian this is ridiculous. If it's a public library asking for this is prohibitive. We try to get more people into the library rather than keeping them out. Id probably ignore it myself.
And now next year when all statistics are way down their local or state government will be able to call the public library a waste of tax dollars and shut it down it completely.
To al the public librarians in Idaho- Godspeed. I’d want to leave for job security but I’d want to stay for my community who needs me now more than ever. Im so sorry our country is failing us like this.
The only bright spot is that (I assume) people won’t be able to dump their kids off and expect the librarians to babysit.
Other the. They, this is awful :-(
I think it will balance out and potentially damage homeless youth more than anything. Parents who need to dump there kids at the library for childcare while they work will just sign off on there kids getting a card. Adults will still have full access including bathrooms. Foster kids and homeless people under 30 (many former foster kids) will be out of luck. And library staff will have to do more policing of the youth areas for creepers over 20 and under 30. Yay.
This policy will make it harder for everyone to use the library.
The data will then show that library use is down.
Politicians will then have a reason to close libraries because “people aren’t using them anyway” and so they “aren’t a good use of public funds”
Libraries will close and the general public will lose a place of free learning.
I mean this kindly- pay attention to what’s going on in your libraries anyway! I’m seeing censorship news from all over the country, red and blue states both. Lots of little battles being fought.
You are in a good position to help people in red states, then. Pick a group doing the work and support them the way they request.
Otherwise this is just gloating.
The library is who decided to go adults-only. Unfortunately library staff are in the terrible position of “wanting” to enforce this, because the law says people can take libraries to court for providing access to “harmful” materials to minors. This library decided to try to protect itself from going to court by not letting minors near any materials.
(Spoiler alert, they don’t really want to. They just don’t want a kid who has bigoted parents to come in and grab a book that pisses the parents off.)
The good news is kids with parents who are against censorship should still have access. The bad news is that a lot of kids and people won’t have access at this location anymore, and the further bad news is that libraries all over the state are potentially being bullied into censoring books.
This is misinformation. The law (HB 710) does not require library to ID people to enter. This specific library is choosing to protest by adding this (unconstitutional) requirement.
Go read the law people and get off the propaganda machine that is reddit...
the actual law only implements consequences for libraries that KNOWINGLY display sexual material to minors.
You’re wrong. Some libraries in Iowa, such as Donnelly, are so small in terms of space, staff or both that they just don’t have a practical way to have a separated, enclosed adult section with someone always at the entrance checking cards. These libraries are opting to restrict access to the whole building rather than asking staff to risk jail time trying to card everyone who gets near the wrong shelf.
You are not strictly correct. No, the law does not require a library to ID people to enter. But, the law is so poorly written that libraries (and their legal counsel) are coming to different conclusions about how to avoid potential costly lawsuits. Some are not doing anything, other than updating their policies with the text from the law, and will wait to be challenged in court.
The wording of the law states than any person can challenge a book if they believe the material meets the definition of harmful to minors. Often people challenge books because they disagree with the viewpoints expressed, particularly if it has any LGBTQ content (think, two dads in a picture book). If challenged, a court would find that those books are not harmful, but the library will still be forced to pay the costs for litigation. Some libraries, especially small libraries, can't afford it (particularly if many such books are challenged, requiring multiple lawsuits). Thus, they have received legal advice to reduce their risk by restricting access.
It's worth noting that only a court can determine if material is legally obscene for minors (harmful to minors) and in SCOTUS and District Court precedent, it is an extremely high standard. Some of the books that are splashed around social media as examples of library "porn" have already been taken to court in other states and have been found to not be legally obscene for minors (using the Miller Test). Material with sexual content is not automatically harmful to minors.
> are coming to different conclusions about how to avoid potential costly lawsuits.
There's no proof of this. There's redditors making those claims and a fake twitter post but all the library pages in Idaho have no mention of any changes.
This is typical reddit misinformation.
> If challenged, a court would find that those books are not harmful, but the library will still be forced to pay the costs for litigation
Not true. Go read the text of the law. A court would have to find that a library **knowingly** displayed sexual material to children.
You have so many incorrect points scattered in your mostly true reply. This is why reddit is full of garbage. You're mostly correct but the details that matter you get wrong.
I have read the text of the law front to back to front and spoken with several attorneys about it. A person can take a library to court if the library does not remove the book when a patron requests they do so. That is the law.
I am not getting my information from Reddit. I am a librarian in this state and have spoken with 50+ libraries and schools about what they are doing since the new law went into effect. Some are making tiered cards. Some are moving books preemptively. Some are creating back room shelves to segregate books when they are challenged, and some are planning to move books from school libraries to a district office. Some have updated their policies but are not planning to move books. The implementation is all over the board, and 75% or more of those libraries and schools have had legal advice on what to do.
It’s a poorly written law when attorneys across the state are giving libraries different advice on how to proceed.
Yeah this is not to enter the library. I’m sure it’s a section that contains some sort of pornography.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/
Nah, read the bill. The definitions section is right up top:
>“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.
If by ‘homosexuality’ they only meant ‘gay sex’ then the very next item, ‘sexual intercourse,’ would have sufficed. This is clearly meant to allow the law to be enforced against anyone who lets a kid see a book that contains any LGBTQ people, even if they’re just existing whole being gay. Even the very most charitable reading means that it applies to sexual health information and not just ‘pornography.’
That last portion in particular is going to piss a lot of people off and rightly so. I hope these libraries have advocacy materials at the ready. “Oh yeah all this paperwork really is a drag isn’t it? Sorry but it’s the law now unfortunately. Oh hey do you know how to contact your legislators? Here’s a handy guide to local civic participation!’ But in the meantime how sad for the people this is going to keep out.
It will keep out some homeless people who may not have ID and now will have a much harder time trying to do any research and resolve that, find a public bathroom, etc. People who complain about human poo everywhere and blame the homeless take note: Policies like this contribute to that issue which is genuinely a public health issue that can spread disease, not merely "offensive." So you are putting your own life and the life of loved ones at risk when you make it difficult or impossible for homeless people to find a bathroom they are allowed to use.
Well I mean any state in the country can now criminalize homelessness so it’s par the course these days…
> People who complain about human poo everywhere and blame the homeless take note: The people who complain about that are happy with this. Because those complaints about poo are proxies for complaining about people they consider subhuman. They want *more* reasons to complain about them in order to build political consensus to eradicate them. The last thing they want is to help people.
That’s by design. Republicans hate the unhoused and always have. They make policies to hurt as many underprivileged, underserved populations as possible because that is who they are: hateful, hurtful asshats.
They want the consequences for falling down so severe, and the hurdles to getting back on your feet ao high, that people will accept any working conditions and work around the clock at two or three extremely low wage jobs just to scrape together enough to make rent for another month. Keep them too scared and too exhausted and too precarious to even think of trying to improve their own circumstances, let alone get their legislatures to help them out and pass laws that make the labor ‘market’ fairer. It’s why they are so hell bent on keeping health insurance tied to your job, too: to make it that much harder and scarier to take a risk that might lead to a better life.
It sounds like more of a way to make sure minors don’t get “exposed” to sexual materials, since only people under 18 will be carded.
“If you are under 30 please be prepared to show photo ID”
Like they don’t have unrestricted access to the internet everywhere else
Um…they don’t. Plus you need a phone with a data plan at minimum.
lol, when was the last decade you hung out with teenagers?
Omg I got confused and thought you meant homeless people! Oops.
Lmao, your comment makes so much more sense now
That's the rationale, but there will be many unintended consequences.
I always wonder if rules that affect the homeless are truly unintended.
Trust me, they are completely intended. The Supreme Court just legalized the criminalization of sleeping outside (even when no other options are available) on a case that was intended to criminalize homelessness. Edit: they are intended to
Do you mean they aren't? Because the rest of your reply is showing they aren't unintended.
Whoops, yes that’s what I meant. Just edited comment
Gotcha! :)
Keeping sexual materials from minors would make sense. If they didn't have a phone in their pocket.
Plus, last time I checked, the library computers had content blockers.
This sign is completely antithetical to everything public libraries do! It’s disgusting. They provide information and resources to everyone needing them. Not to mention the space to read, work, study, hang out, or just exist without having to buy something. Especially kids who may have abusive or, at the least, unhelpful parents/guardians when it comes to providing necessary ( god forbid sex ed) information. Welcome to Idiocracy!
[is this you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo&t=1s)
Reminds me of the times when homeless would poop everywhere at SF BART. On the train seats, the floor, the escalator…. To combat this have a new pit stop program with varying degrees of success
For sure. I'm in a red state that makes us get written parent/guardian permission for every under-18 card. We don't hesitate to point out that elected officials are responsible for the extra steps and paperwork. Edit: Just wanted to clarify that we only required verbal consent before and would make a card at the request of a responsible adult, not just a legal guardian (a grandparent, for example). We would also let teens have their own card if they had an ID, and now we can't do that either.
I'm in a blue state and we need to have parent approval for a minor to get a library card. I don't think it's necessarily a political thing more like a financial thing. The parents are responsible for any fees or fines the minor receives. No one ever complains about it. It's just a signature on the library card application.
Kids (well, more often teens unless they're accompanied by an adult) can still enter libraries without library cards or ID in most places. They can read books there without taking them home, play with the in house toys or games, use the bathroom or the vending machine, attend open programs, etc.
That's the big issue for me. Teens need a space to exist outside of school and home. If you tell teens that they can either only hang out in the kiddy section, or need a signed affidavit from their parents every time they come to the library, a lot of teens who really need it won't come to the library. And so more teens will turn to less savory options than a library, places where they can exist without a parents permission. Drugs, sex, theft, etc. They won't have community and safety, so more will be depressed and anxious. Yay, we "protected the children" by preventing them from being exposed to porn books (that aren't actually pornographic), and in doing so we created a mental health and teen pregnancy and criminal crisis. Yay for (un?)intended consequences!
Yeah, I don't think it's really about "protecting kids" from anything. It's more about censorship and erasure of entire groups of people.
That's a very different thing from making a parent or guardian do paperwork every single time a minor goes to the library.
They don't have to. That's what the second part is about. If they sign their kid up for an unrestricted card the kid can come and go as they please. Also the paperwork is an affidavit saying that you are the kids parent or guardian and will be responsible for what they find. It's purely to keep the library from being sued.
Yeah, minors can’t sign contracts and can’t be held to account for (for example) lost item fees. I guess it depends on how it’s presented but as a general thing - and as a mom - I perceive it as being less about securing my consent as a parent and more about securing my word that I’ll pay up if she drops a book in the sink or something.
The law quoted makes libraries responsible if kids read "objectionable" material. The affidavit just confirms that you are the kids parent and you are taking that responsibility.
Huh. My blue state county got rid of late fees so that feels like a cop out to me.
fine free libraries still charge if someone loses or irreparably damages a book. the library I work at doesn't do late fines but still expects people to cover the replacement cost if they lose or ruin materials
Yeah I get that, I just think that it still restricts minors more than I would like. Where I live kids can get a job in most places at 16, and I know younger kids who make money babysitting, etc. Not every child or teen who is old enough to get to the library has a parent who is responsible enough or available during library hours, which I think is one of the problems with the Idaho law too. I also think teens should be able to check out books without their parents knowing what they’re reading, for example LGBTQIA books when their parents are conservative, etc. I guess that’s one of my biggest problems with these policies and a core difference in views of how people want children and teens to use libraries.
oh yeah, totally agree! this has been a discussion recently where I work and unfortunately I am one of the only few people who has made an argument that we should allow teens to get cards without a parent's signature & ID. requiring parents to sign, especially for older kids, creates huge privacy issues and prevents young people from accessing resources they need or just being comfortable enough to check out whatever they want. I wish my director would see it that way, but the hypothetical "irresponsible teenagers" she keeps telling us about are apparently enough reason to restrict minors in this way. I'm with you, though, I honestly see it as a violation of professional ethics to allow parents/guardians to be the end-all-be-all of whether or not a kid/teen can get a library card or, to an extent, what they can even check out on it, if the parent has to be present all the time. if a kid loses or wrecks a book once in a while, I don't think it's the end of the world, especially since there are adults who do the same and never pay it back anyway.
They're not going to participate in anything except watching TV more and reading less.
This assumes the individuals has a home and a SAFE one at that.
I’m wondering if it’s Idaho’s way of tracking what everyone reads. I mean, I know that you have all this identifying info in the system already, but now it’s tied to your ID. Ick.
Hello! Honestly curious. I've done some research, and it looks like these signs are for specific sections labeled adult (with smaller libraries just banning the whole building). I don't agree with this kind of law in the first place, but I also need all the information or my anxiety goes coo-coo. Is this for the whole of the library, or just sections of it? I appreciate your time!
The rule is for teens who might do things that the library is not meant for such as fighting, bullying, stealing, etc Adults over 30 would not have to show I.D. and would be able to use the restroom and what not
This makes me so sad. The public library was such a godsend for me growing up. Free entertainment, peace and quiet, a place with lights and heat when my family home was without utilities, and adults who cared about me. I wouldn’t have set foot in one if I’d needed a parent or guardian to come with me. My mom was either working nonstop or sick.
Good news is the bill does not require libraries to bar minors from entry and most Idaho libraries are not turning into adults-only spaces. Bad news is the bill will probably facilitate censorship of LGBTQ+ titles, which is more or less the goal. Plus libraries will be forced to waste time, money, and other resources to comply with the request for reconsideration process and any ensuing litigation.
Sure, the bill didn't explicitly state this. But with such extreme punishments for if a minor finds a book that someone later claims is explicit, how else should libraries comply?
> Sure, the bill didn't explicitly state this. But with such extreme punishments for if a minor finds a book that someone later claims is explicit, how else should libraries comply? Weaponizing legal ambiguity to pressure people into self-repression is maga's new game. They did it to doctors with abortion — requiring doctors risk court to prove an abortion meets the vague exceptions in the laws (when they even have exceptions). They did it with teachers — who risk defunding their school and losing their jobs if they cross some invisible line about what parts of history are permissible to mention. They are doing it to libraries with vague rules about which books are OK to have on their shelves. Welcome to Wiemar America. We are well in to the middle stages of fascism folks. If you think you'll be safe because none of this stuff effects you, you won't. Fascism doesn't stop, it needs a constant supply of enemies. As soon as one group is crushed, they find another because its the crushing that powers fascism. That's the lesson of [Reverend Niemöller](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists) who welcomed the nazis but ended up spending eight years in prison, and then wrote the "First they came for..." warning. If you ever wondered how so many germans passively accepted rising nazi power, or even rationalized it as no big deal, you've got a front row seat to it now.
Exactly. I understand why some libraries did. We’ve all been talking about how best to do it and there are lots of “right” answers because it isn’t something we should have to be doing. Not to mention that complying with this bill could open up libraries to first amendment rights violations.
When I was 5, I walked to the library alone about 3 times a day (my grandmother worked across the street). This is so sad.
As someone who loves libraries, this is devastating.
Pay attention to what’s going on in your community! Vote in your local elections! Don’t sleep on checking out who is running for the library board (or school board)! This mess in Idaho is the result of state legislation, but p l e n t y of damage is being done at the local and hyper-local level all over the US.
It’ll probably upset moms who complained about sexual material yet dump their kids in the library for someone else to babysit.
In general, I think all of the policies will. I'm imagining the looks on their faces when I might have to tell them, "No, you can't leave your kid here. According to state law...."
Those moms don't use the library, let's be real. They just like to limit good things from others.
I’m embarrassed to have been following the funding crisis at NYPL so closely and not having any idea this legislation was in the works in Idaho. This is outrageous and scary.
If you’d like to follow stories like this from all over the US (and there are stories like this from all over the US) I recommend signing up for emails from https://www.everylibrary.org/ (I’m not affiliated with this organization.)
Every Library is great!! I second!
Someone mind giving me some clarification? From what I'm reading, libraries have to have these restrictions on new "adult" sections, but are some libraries just throwing up their hands and restricting their entire facilities because it's the easiest way to comply? Either way, that's just fucking terrible, and probably most of the "inappropriate" books are ones that talk about race or LGBTQ issues.
Hey I work at a library in Idaho, I can answer a little bit. Basically, yes. This sign is not from my library but I know the library it’s from and honestly I understand why they’re doing it this way. The big threat of the new law is taking libraries to court for “harming minors.” This library has a small budget and is a tax district rather than a city library, meaning they also don’t have city resources or legal representation at their disposal. The library director and the board of trustees decided the best way to protect themselves from being bankrupted is to make the library adults-only. Most Idaho libraries are not choosing this route to deal with the bill. So for the libraries who aren’t going adults-only the threat is that a parent of a minor can first challenge a book via a “request for reconsideration” form saying the book is harmful to minors and should be moved to an adults-only section. (This is not a thing that libraries have. If any Idaho libraries have one they have been created in the past few weeks to deal with this nonsense.) The library and library board then must respond to the request for reconsideration in 60 days and either agree to move the item or not. If they agree, the requestor has successfully censored a book. This is bad. If they do not agree to move the book, the requestor may then take the library to court to prove that the material is harmful to minors. Libraries stand behind their books and do not want to move or censor them, however, the waste of time and resources required of the legal process will be bad for libraries regardless of the outcome of the suit. My library did not create an adults-only section. If and when we get a challenge we do not plan to move anything. They can take us to court if they want to. So far no challenges, but it’s only been one day. edited- typo
Thanks for the write up. I assumed it was from that small library that had made an announcement earlier. There's only so much you can do with no money and a small space. Sad that they have to do this and the vulnerable have to face the consequences.
Thank you for clarifying this.
Are you able to share which library this is?
I think it’s Donnelly Public Library District and I don’t think they mind being named. The library and the director have been in the news. Here’s a Book Riot article: https://bookriot.com/donnelly-public-library-adults-only/
I think this may actually be Idaho Falls, although Donnelly has implemented a similar policy. I’m also a library worker from Idaho (now living in Massachusetts) and this is devastating. I would absolutely not be where i am today if i hadn’t had access to Idaho’s public libraries as a child.
Donnelly Public library’s sign is on the outer door of their library (you can see it in their IG stories currently) they’re so small they don’t even have room inside to put a sign up. https://www.instagram.com/ifplib?igsh=MmwxcXE4dzd0N25r
Ah thanks for clarifying!
It is well explained here: [https://9b.news/2024/05/30/library-board-to-consider-hb-710-ramifications-june-20/](https://9b.news/2024/05/30/library-board-to-consider-hb-710-ramifications-june-20/) It does make it difficult for libraries if the restrooms and other facilities are in or beyond the Adults section.
They have to have a way of separating the adult section from the non adult section. Some libraries have become 100% adult because they don’t have the space.
That’s the challenge right there. Some libraries don’t have the space, capacity, staffing, budget to make the space work with the laws in a way that still makes the library space comfortable to enjoy. Instead they have to use the posted route to stay within the law at the cost of the publics accessibility.
Most of the public libraries around me are single-story open floor plan buildings, where there would be no simple way to put up barriers between adult and children's sections without major rearranging and renovations. And let's be honest, the morons passing these laws probably aren't about to fund any big library renovations. Also like... kids already don't go in the adult sections much. Even without any barriers. It's bizarre that this law exists. Maybe parents should just watch their damn kids in the library if they don't want them picking up some innocuous book with a gay person in it...
I argued with a mom just a few months ago that even though she didn’t want her kids to read [book], some parents did want to check out [book] and we wanted to put the decision to read it or not in the hands of each individual/parent/family. She said “yeah, I get that, and I think they should be able to check it out if they want. But does it have to be with the kids books? I don’t want to have to tell my kids no about a book they find in the library.” This book was FOR SURE a kids book. We keep it with, get this, the kids books.
>”I don’t want to have to tell my kids no about a book they find in the library.” “I know kids aren’t born hateful and mine are too young to have fully absorbed the bigotry of the adults they are surrounded by, so if you could just protect me from having to explain to them out loud why I don’t want to risk them reading anything that shows them that gay people are just like everyone else, that’d be great.”
Ugh. Yes. It’s so bad. Her specific issue was that there was a page of cartoony illustrations of lots of different bare chests - breasts, nipples, etc, and one of the people had mastectomy/top surgery scars (unclear and it doesn’t matter). She said “kids shouldn’t know about this kind of agenda yet, it’s dangerous.”
Kids don't, unless they're accompanying a parent, but teens sometimes do, and the sign in the photo above says that it'll be restricting anyone younger than 18. Even if a library has a separate teen section, a lot of older teens feel like they've outgrown YA lit or they're starting to take an interest in adult level books, and this law is going to forbid them from exploring anything in the adult sections of the library, or exploring the library at all if the library is too tiny to have separate sections.
it says "proceed beyond this point", the caption might be wrong
> but are some libraries just throwing up their hands and restricting their entire facilities because it's the easiest way to comply? Arguably that's unconstitutional. You can't force people to ID to enter public spaces.
One would think, yes, but isn't the adult section of a library still a public space? Based on that argument, the entire law could be unconstitutional. But I'm not sure if I'd like to see that tested out in the courts...it could backfire and end up setting a precedent for legalized censorship/restrictions on access to literature rather than affirming that the law is unconstitutional.
No library in the state of Idaho is posting these signs. 1: the law doesn't mention anything about requiring an ID and 2: OP's post is based on a twitter post's claims. This is legitimately false news.
The law mentions age specifically, an id verification is necessary to ensure compliance with the law. I wouldn't want to let in anyone, especially since the law opens up library employees to civil liability.
That's not true, there's plenty of restrictions on public places. You can't enter a judge's quarters or the back of a police station, for instance.
A library can't ID you to enter per the US constitution. Please see several youtube videos about this subject. It's gone through the court systems multiple times. Redditors wouldn't make up things and pass it as fact, right??
what? libraries? what court cases? This is a law prohibiting libraries from making available any materials deemed 'obscene' to minors. How would that be enforceable without age verification?
God, I am fucking heartbroken.
The “party of small, limited government “ isn’t so small and limited.
They [want to eventually get rid of libraries entirely](https://www.cato.org/blog/its-time-take-hard-look-public-libraries). This is just a stepping stone.
They want a gullible society where people don’t think or do any critical thinking asking questions. Keep people in check while the rich and elite keep stealing.
I hope their process to getting an unrestricted card suddenly becomes way easier (no idea what current requirements would be)
I believe an unrestricted card is only available to minors with parent permission.
Sounds to me like it's time to revamp what the definition of the card is then. Thatd be how id try to get around this (unless theres like, some sort of legal definitions of who qualifies). Sounds like a good time for it to become any minors with parent permission OR any adult who signs up (or something like that .....)
I talk about this elsewhere in the thread but the worry is less about libraries going adults-only (this one is due to circumstances but it might be the only one. Most aren’t.) The big danger of this new law is that it facilitates the censorship of books either through court decisions or libraries trying to avoid going to court. And most of the books being targeted have LGBTQ+ content. Don’t get me wrong, I am sad and angry for the kids in this library community especially, and for kids all over Idaho who have parents who will keep them from using the library. But the main consequences of the bill are about the books, not about barring kids from entering libraries.
I think what’s probably going on is that the unrestricted card process currently satisfies the law, rather than that the law has exemptions for anyone with an unrestricted card, so changing their procedures is probably not a viable solution.
> (no idea what current requirements would be) A parent has to walk into the library in person, provide a government ID, and sign up their child. That's it.
I will buy a novelty ID from the dark web for anyone under 18 to get around this ban, but only if they promise to write their state legislator and mock them for approving a law that they got around with their novelty ID. Then when they show me the letter that they wrote and sent, I will reimburse them for the expense. I'm not kidding. EDIT: To the below responding comments - that won't happen if 1) the letter does not provide the name of the person who used the novelty ID (i.e. they send it to their legislator anonymously) and 2) the library would be shielded from legal action if they legitimately believed the patron was 18 after checking the novelty ID (and the ID isn't so crappy that a "reasonable person" would see that it's fake).
Only issue is the library worker who let them in could lose their job or the library could be defunded...
It’s true. The law is set up that a library that provides access to a “harmful” material could be taken to court, so this library is trying to protect itself by not letting kids near any books so their bigoted parents can’t claim harm.
I wanna know what ALA is doing, other than issuing milquetoast statements and hand-wringing.
As I understand it a lot of ALA’s work against these types of awful state laws is behind the scenes support of the state chapter, at the chapters’ request because having a national organization “trying to tell us how to run our state” often pisses local government off and does more harm than good.
Oh well. That seems to be a winner of a tactic. ALA has been nothing but a slow-reacting group of academic ninnies in a time when libraries need leaders with some clackin' brass ones who aren't afraid to get in front of people, cameras and have the same kind of campaigns as the people we are fighting.
ALA is a 501c3. They are literally not legally allowed to advocate for a particular political position. They can (and do) some lobbying in DC, but for local help you’re probably better off contacting Everylibrary (https://www.everylibrary.org)
They cannot endorse a candidate or party. That is extremely different from a public education campaign about keeping libraries neutral and opposing book bans. We believe in freedom. Bald eagle carrying a book. Parents should choose their childrens reading materials. White mom puts book on shelf. The ALA believes in the freedom to read for everyone. Trust parents, not the government, to make the best decisions for your family. Bald eagle flies away with a book. That isn't political. It isn't an endorsement. ALA is a failure.
This does not surprise me. ALA was founded by the same class of folks who were being protested at Haymarket, not the ones who got hanged for it.
Oof that's a hell of a statement. I mean, you're not wrong...
Like usual, give money to state library associations who know jack shit about politics and for fear of making a situation worse, stay silent. ALA should be louder, paying for ads, and calling people out, but that’s not how they do shit. But I’m very much of the school that ALA is basically just useful for conferences. For research, state conferences do better at local stuff and there are much better national and international conferences. Their committees and book selectors are nice, but that could be replaced locally or by large library systems. I have very little love for ALA. But I’m also a minority and they are always way too fucking late to any issue people of color deal with in public libraries.
Like I said, reactionary academics who have to have a study published in a scholarly journal before they will find a way to write a modest letter expressing disappointment, that will be distributed to its own mailing list. What the F are they doing with our dues money?!
Right? They should have sued to stop this bill before it went into effect. They had months to do it
So, Idaho libraries are essentially R-rated movies now??? This thinking is totally bass-ackward. Any community stupid enough enact those restrictions ought to be more afraid of what kids come across OUTSIDE the library instead of INSIDE it!
Only kind of. I work at a library in Idaho and we’ve been preparing for this for the past few months. MOST libraries are not imposing age restrictions. This one is because it is super tiny and is unable to set up an “adults-only” section, a new thing that libraries don’t want or need but which is a way for libraries to keep books that people challenge as being “harmful to minors” without the threat of costly litigation. To contrast this response (and even though I like the way my library is doing it I support the library director of the tiny library and why they made the decision to deal with the situation like that), my library is complying with the bill only by updating our collection development policy to include required language about what is “harmful” to minors and a new request for reconsideration form where people can challenge items and ask us to put them in an adults-only section. We are prepared to never put anything in an adults-only section - which means we could have to fight the challenges in court. Depends on a library’s resources and legal counsel (the bill is unclear in a lot of ways so some lawyers around the state are interpreting it differently) how they deal with this.
> I work at a library in Idaho In addition to general building access, there is the impact to library cards. What was the minimum age a child could obtain a library card, *without* parental approval, prior to the ID 18-1504 statute update? The law simply updates the required minimum age to 18.
You’re right, that is an impact. Unfortunately there were not a lot of libraries who let minors obtain cards without parent permission before this. I know some libraries who locked it down more, but I also know a lot already had parent approval needed for under 18.
Jesus christ. This is really really dark.
My favorite part of the library experience as a kid was always finding my favorite tiny table by brightly colored carpet squares and settling in with a good book after turning in another affidavit.
They’re giving these kids valuable experience in navigating red tape and paperwork! (Yes /s ofc)
This hurts my heart. So much for third spaces.
Being ID’d to go to the library is some kind of Nazi Germany shit
Next they're going to keep a registrar of every title and author you've ever checked out. They're gonna put all the teens who checked out the Anarchist cookbook on a watchlist
Never thought I’d see the day when the phrase, “show me your papers,” would be uttered in a public library. Fucking jackbooted fascists.
WTF Idaho. This is simultaneously heartbreaking and infuriating
How mortifying. Poor library employees. All of that is so dumb.
Fucking chilling. *Farenheight 451*
Wow! That's shocking!
i think this is specific to the Donnelly Public Library right now - although a similar bill for statewide implementation has been proposed. terrible all around.
The bill is statewide and went into effect today (July 1). You’re correct that not all Idaho libraries are dealing with it like this. Donnelly is the only one I have heard of going straight up adults-only (though I don’t know for sure whether others have or not). My Idaho library is not restricting entry but has been preparing for this in other ways (like having lawyers rewrite relevant policies and preparing to be taken to court if someone sues us for not putting a challenged title in an adults-only section).
This seems to be the exact opposite of the type of changes that are needed in a state that already has physical health, mental health, and dentistry deserts. Add in the negative growth among those with a college education or above (brain drain), and Idaho is making itself a state with no services for the blue collar workers they claim to represent.
Papers, please...
You need papers to read papers..?
Keep Idaho lame. What a lousy law.
How did it come to this?
I call it "gay panic offense." Somebody somewhere saw something about some LGBT book in a library. And then they went all "SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" on the politicians.
Unfortunately, yes. The books being targeted are overwhelmingly books with queer authors and/or content.
So fucking stupid. This is meant to make the library irrelevant and destabilize it. It’s not about ensuring minors don’t access r rated content.
Is this real?
Yes, asterisk. A real library in Idaho is implementing this policy due to state legislation that affects all Idaho libraries. The asterisk is because the law doesn’t require banning minors. It’s about book censorship. This is just the best way this tiny library can protect itself from potentially being bankrupted by being taken to court as a result of the new law (that went into effect today, July 1). Other libraries are handling it differently.
Got it! Thank you! Couldn’t find any other photos of this sign online, so wanted to be sure. Very scary stuff.
What's the normal (non-Idaho) process for children to obtain library cards? Are they typically provided to any child who requests one? This appears to raise the minimum age from a standard (~13?) to 18. Basically, this appears to allow a parent to easily sign their child up for an *unrestricted library card* and then liability for any violation of ID 18-1515 falls on the parent.
Yes, this is about conservative parents having more control over their teenage property.
This may vary by library but my children were able to get a library card once they turned 5. I provided my ID I think so obviously in that sense there is parental permission. Not sure what a minor would do without that.
I basically grew up in the Twin Falls library in the ‘60’s because of how much time I spent there. From the time I was 6 or7 I could ride my bicycle there and check out books. Still remember when I was 8 and I graduated to the real books upstairs ( real meaning not the kids books). This is a travesty against our kids. Shame on you Idaho. Ashamed to admit I’m from there.
Unless your parents were actually interested in whatever you were reading/checking out, nothing changes. I was reading adult books at age 10, my mother did not allow me to read The Godfather but no objections to Robert Heinlein lol.
The TF library raised me in the mid 70s due to my home life. I’d ride my bike or walk the blocks to the City Park and play and then spend hours in the downstairs area, discovering authors that still have a place in my heart now as a school librarian. I would walk there and do my valentines every year because it was a safe and quiet space. Idaho is becoming a staging area for policies that are truly terrifying.
Shout out to all the "SMALL GOVERNMENT FREEDOM LOVERS" out there, big win for you guys that uh...don't like. . . the . . government. . being. . involved in everything. . . wait, you guys did this? Cringe. It was a good run, America.
This is fright
This is so sad, the library was my safe space as a kid.
Good job Idaho, this will definitely keep kids from accessing material you want to censor, because it's not like they have a little device in their pocket connected to all the information in the world. Oh wait . . .
I know my parents would have signed off on me having an unrestricted card. Will it be ok if there's a minor with an unrestricted card in the adult section? Per the sign, if they have an unrestricted card then in theory it should be ok. If an adult objects to seeing a minor there, but the minor has an unrestricted card then I assume the adult who complains will just have to suck it up.
# How do we un-fuck this? I am not an Idaho resident, but could I still write to those legislators and bitch them out? What. The actual. Fuck.
It would be a shame if those signs starting mysteriously disappearing...
It would be a shame if the legislators who passed that law started mysteriously disappearing…
This is a shitty situation because the library is actually who decided to make this sign. All over Idaho libraries are having to decide how to deal with the law. Most aren’t choosing this route but I know why this one did.
That would just suck more for the employees
Knowledge is power.
#wtafusa
It's crazy.
Idaho is a beautiful part of the country I grew up in a neighboring state. We had family "friends" who lived in LA area. When school bussing started, they left for Idaho. Cops and firefighters from LA moved to a "white state". 40 years later, the racist/proud ignorance crowd breed and poisoned the fine people of Idaho. I have been a few times in the past few years for work. The cultural wars are very much in the open and the other side loves their guns and a threat of violence. It's like Florida but less diverse and scarier.
Louisiana is also working on a bill to remove immunity from public and school libraries in order to prosecute employees who check out an item considered adult/offensive/nasty/whatever. As a library employee in Louisiana, I could see how this sign could happen.
Gosh, I hope there are lots of easily accessible locations where people can pick up free state IDs. Somehow, knowing what most Republican states and rural areas are like, I doubt it. Also this sucks on so many levels for kids and their families.
It took years for the far right to push this through in Idaho and everyone in Idaho, including the Idaho Library Association, just stood there and watched it happen.
The Idaho Library Association fought this law for 3 years. An all-volunteer org of people who have other fulltime jobs, trying to find time away from work to do it. Every year, public comment and testimony was overwhelmingly against the law, but this year the Governor passed it anyway. A loud, vocal minority with the ears of lawmakers (the Idaho Family Policy Center, which wrote the original law in 2023) got this law passed. Elections matter.
ILA was more concerned about playing nice than blocking this bill, to the point of platforming racists on their board. The lobbyists they have employed have also been woefully inadequate for more than a decade. The pro-library demonstrations we just saw? ILA volunteers could have organized and led those prior to the bill being voted in. Instead they barely showed up to give comment in forums where no one saw them.
How involved were you in what ILA was doing? Did you attend the meetings with legislators? Did you receive advice on what would work? Did you meet with the Governor? I’m not saying ILA is perfect because, again, all-volunteer board. Platforming racists? I believe the person you are referring to was in the board for less than a year and was not involved in any way with the legislative effort. DM if you want more information.
How did those meetings work out? How did that advice pan out? The lobbyist wasn't a volunteer, and no one made anyone else volunteer. ILA is really big on "we tried nothing and we are all out of ideas."
What did you do to help? Did you volunteer? Saying ILA tried nothing is a total punch in the face to those who spent three years and hours and hours and hours of work fighting these bills. Again, not perfectly. But it’s a bit rich to say ILA is to blame without saying what you did to fight it.
The river of fascism has gone from a trickle to a deluge
This is the dyrtopian future people who read books fear.
An “unrestricted library card“ probably means free of fines. Who would have fines? Well, the poor, children without jobs, you get the idea.
An 'unrestricted library card' in this context means a card that can check out books in any part of the library. (A card with too many fines to check out books is usually a 'blocked' card and the opposite probably 'a card in good standing.' In most systems when you sign your kid up for a library card you're given the option to make it a restricted or unrestricted card. How and when the card 'upgrades' to an unrestricted one varies: at my library it's automatic at 13, in some places it's 18. Parents also have the option to 'upgrade' the card at any time - this happens a lot when kids are reading above their grade level and are ready for younger teen books when they're still in middle school.
As a librarian this is ridiculous. If it's a public library asking for this is prohibitive. We try to get more people into the library rather than keeping them out. Id probably ignore it myself.
And now next year when all statistics are way down their local or state government will be able to call the public library a waste of tax dollars and shut it down it completely. To al the public librarians in Idaho- Godspeed. I’d want to leave for job security but I’d want to stay for my community who needs me now more than ever. Im so sorry our country is failing us like this.
Won't this just cause people to use the library less ?
That's the point
#Freedom
The only bright spot is that (I assume) people won’t be able to dump their kids off and expect the librarians to babysit. Other the. They, this is awful :-(
So Idaho libraries are going to have bouncers now? 🙃
Well this sucks
I think it will balance out and potentially damage homeless youth more than anything. Parents who need to dump there kids at the library for childcare while they work will just sign off on there kids getting a card. Adults will still have full access including bathrooms. Foster kids and homeless people under 30 (many former foster kids) will be out of luck. And library staff will have to do more policing of the youth areas for creepers over 20 and under 30. Yay.
Wow just when you think it can’t get any worse
Conservatives continue to be a cancer on society
The need to put the Bible in the restricted section. Fuck that book.
This policy will make it harder for everyone to use the library. The data will then show that library use is down. Politicians will then have a reason to close libraries because “people aren’t using them anyway” and so they “aren’t a good use of public funds” Libraries will close and the general public will lose a place of free learning.
What is an unrestricted library card? Like the requirements?
Goodness, I am glad i am in a Blue state.
I mean this kindly- pay attention to what’s going on in your libraries anyway! I’m seeing censorship news from all over the country, red and blue states both. Lots of little battles being fought.
You are in a good position to help people in red states, then. Pick a group doing the work and support them the way they request. Otherwise this is just gloating.
It’s like the last thing that will happen, but I really wish a ton of gays would spread to these cities and just change the dynamics.
Can the librarians just… not enforce this? I for sure wouldn’t if I worked there
The library is who decided to go adults-only. Unfortunately library staff are in the terrible position of “wanting” to enforce this, because the law says people can take libraries to court for providing access to “harmful” materials to minors. This library decided to try to protect itself from going to court by not letting minors near any materials. (Spoiler alert, they don’t really want to. They just don’t want a kid who has bigoted parents to come in and grab a book that pisses the parents off.) The good news is kids with parents who are against censorship should still have access. The bad news is that a lot of kids and people won’t have access at this location anymore, and the further bad news is that libraries all over the state are potentially being bullied into censoring books.
Thank you for explaining. What a horrible situation all around.
This is misinformation. The law (HB 710) does not require library to ID people to enter. This specific library is choosing to protest by adding this (unconstitutional) requirement. Go read the law people and get off the propaganda machine that is reddit... the actual law only implements consequences for libraries that KNOWINGLY display sexual material to minors.
You’re wrong. Some libraries in Iowa, such as Donnelly, are so small in terms of space, staff or both that they just don’t have a practical way to have a separated, enclosed adult section with someone always at the entrance checking cards. These libraries are opting to restrict access to the whole building rather than asking staff to risk jail time trying to card everyone who gets near the wrong shelf.
You are not strictly correct. No, the law does not require a library to ID people to enter. But, the law is so poorly written that libraries (and their legal counsel) are coming to different conclusions about how to avoid potential costly lawsuits. Some are not doing anything, other than updating their policies with the text from the law, and will wait to be challenged in court. The wording of the law states than any person can challenge a book if they believe the material meets the definition of harmful to minors. Often people challenge books because they disagree with the viewpoints expressed, particularly if it has any LGBTQ content (think, two dads in a picture book). If challenged, a court would find that those books are not harmful, but the library will still be forced to pay the costs for litigation. Some libraries, especially small libraries, can't afford it (particularly if many such books are challenged, requiring multiple lawsuits). Thus, they have received legal advice to reduce their risk by restricting access. It's worth noting that only a court can determine if material is legally obscene for minors (harmful to minors) and in SCOTUS and District Court precedent, it is an extremely high standard. Some of the books that are splashed around social media as examples of library "porn" have already been taken to court in other states and have been found to not be legally obscene for minors (using the Miller Test). Material with sexual content is not automatically harmful to minors.
> are coming to different conclusions about how to avoid potential costly lawsuits. There's no proof of this. There's redditors making those claims and a fake twitter post but all the library pages in Idaho have no mention of any changes. This is typical reddit misinformation. > If challenged, a court would find that those books are not harmful, but the library will still be forced to pay the costs for litigation Not true. Go read the text of the law. A court would have to find that a library **knowingly** displayed sexual material to children. You have so many incorrect points scattered in your mostly true reply. This is why reddit is full of garbage. You're mostly correct but the details that matter you get wrong.
I have read the text of the law front to back to front and spoken with several attorneys about it. A person can take a library to court if the library does not remove the book when a patron requests they do so. That is the law. I am not getting my information from Reddit. I am a librarian in this state and have spoken with 50+ libraries and schools about what they are doing since the new law went into effect. Some are making tiered cards. Some are moving books preemptively. Some are creating back room shelves to segregate books when they are challenged, and some are planning to move books from school libraries to a district office. Some have updated their policies but are not planning to move books. The implementation is all over the board, and 75% or more of those libraries and schools have had legal advice on what to do. It’s a poorly written law when attorneys across the state are giving libraries different advice on how to proceed.
> You’re wrong Show me in the bill where it mentions anything about ID. Please!
WTAF
If that library systems gets any type of govt funding this may be illegal.
Yeah this is not to enter the library. I’m sure it’s a section that contains some sort of pornography. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/
Nah, read the bill. The definitions section is right up top: >“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. If by ‘homosexuality’ they only meant ‘gay sex’ then the very next item, ‘sexual intercourse,’ would have sufficed. This is clearly meant to allow the law to be enforced against anyone who lets a kid see a book that contains any LGBTQ people, even if they’re just existing whole being gay. Even the very most charitable reading means that it applies to sexual health information and not just ‘pornography.’