A bill to protect libraries from book banners spurs debate

"I have an objection to elected officials banning books," said Steve Ahlquist. "One hundred percent. As a political system, that's called fascism."

“This bill was motivated by a deep love of public libraries and a deep love of reading that I was able to develop because of my lifelong access to public libraries,” said State Representative Jennifer Stewart (Democrat, District 59, Pawtucket) to the few members of the House Committee on State Government and Elections still in the room.  “I was dismayed to witness, over the last few years, efforts that try to compromise the ability of public libraries to provide the important service that they provide to our communities, so I reached out to the Rhode Island Library Association to find out how I might be able to do something as a state legislator to support the mission of public libraries. The result of that was this bill that's before you.

“What does the bill do? It protects the freedom of public libraries to acquire and deaccession materials according to their professional standards of carrying out their role,” continued Representative Stewart. “It also asserts that libraries shall provide an adequate collection of books and other materials sufficient in size and varied in subject matter to satisfy the needs of the people in their communities.”

“This bill is about protecting a public library's ability to carry out its mission and function. In an ideal set of circumstances a bill like this shouldn't be needed, [but] you're going to hear testimony tonight from several people about why it is needed as a protective measure and as an important statement [in support] of the democratic values of Rhode Island.”

Representative Stewart’s bill - H7386 - The Freedom to Read Act, “asserts that it is the responsibility of the state government to support the right of Rhode Islanders to read freely,” wrote Stewart in a statement.

“Books are under profound attack in the United States,” according to PEN America, “They are disappearing from library shelves, being challenged in droves, and being decreed off-limits by school boards, legislators, and prison authorities. And everywhere, it is the books that have long fought for a place on the shelf that are being targeted. Books by authors of color, by LGBTQ+ authors, by women. Books about racism, sexuality, gender, and history.” PEN America “stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide.”

State Representative Brian Newberry (Republican, District 48, North Smithfield) opposed the bill as written, though he claimed to support libraries and free speech.

Brian Newberry: I have several questions. Is there an example of something in Rhode Island that this is responding to? Is this needed?

Jennifer Stewart: There will be witnesses who will be able to speak more about a climate of fear that libraries have [due to] national actions and actions that have been going on in other states. There have been four attempts to censor the holdings of libraries in the state [of Rhode Island] in 2022.

Brian Newberry: I used to sit on the board of my local library, which technically is a private organization, but I think that's unusual. Most of the libraries in the state are agencies or departments of [municipalities] so the [library] is paid for by public tax dollars. By definition, a library has limited resources. By definition, at every library, someone has to decide what to include and not include. So why can't the people who pay for [the library] have a say in that? I'm not saying they have to make a decision - a citizen doesn't have to make [that] decision, but why can't they have input into that?

Jennifer Stewart: [Librarians] decide according to professional standards and by a process for making that decision. Taxpayers can participate in that process. We'll have librarians here tonight who can speak more about how that process operates.

Brian Newberry: What if the City Council of Woonsocket decided that the head librarian at the Harris Library in Woonsocket was choosing inappropriately as to what to stock in the library and decided to terminate that person? Would that violate this?

Jennifer Stewart: I would think in that case there would need to be some procedures of accountability that would have to take place. This bill does not address the hiring and firing of that official. It's about efforts to censor library holdings

Committee Chair Evan Shanley (Democrat, District 24, Warwick): I think this is effectively a policy statement. It's not [about] enforcement.

Brian Newberry: But Mr. Chairman, I think that the problem is that it could be. If you read this in detail, it could open up a library to litigation. It talks about [how a library] has to satisfy the needs of the people in their community. What if I decide that the library of North Smithfield doesn't have a sufficient collection of X books and I'm a resident and I have standing - Can I sue the town or sue the library?

Jennifer Stewart: There is a process for requesting that your community library has...

Brian Newberry: I get that. if the librarian is non-responsive and I think the library is not meeting the needs of my community, this opens up potential litigation.

To get back to my question earlier, if a librarian is terminated by the city council of any city or town and the reason for the termination is they don't like the librarian's choice - whatever the choice is - it's not about what the subject matter is. If they don't like the way the librarian is doing their job, can the librarian sue for wrongful termination and bring a claim under this? This opens up a lot of cans of worms, is my point.

I'm not going to belabor the point. I understand what you're trying to do. I don't think anybody's in favor of banning books, but libraries have limited resources. Somebody has to make the decision of what goes in there and the people paying for that should have a say in it. That's all I'm saying.

Jennifer Stewart: And I'm saying that they already do and this protects the ability for that process to play out.

Evan Shanley: We can follow up with the committee's legal counsel for guidance on your question Representative Newberry..

Contrary to Representative Newberry’s assertion, in 2022, according to the PBS NewsHour, there were four efforts to ban books in Rhode Island. Last year there was a bill introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives to restrict access to “obscene” books. That bill had bipartisan support. It did not advance. Nonetheless, we should expect more attempts to ban books in Rhode Island - see this 2023 article at Ocean State Stories.

The hearing then turned to public comment. You can watch the hearing here.

Daniel Solomon: I am a researcher at Brown Votes, which is the nonpartisan voting and democratic participation initiative at Brown University where I'm a sophomore concentrating in urban studies and political science. I come to you today in my position at Brown Votes, having been born and raised in Miami, Florida, and attended Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Since the Florida governor signed House Bill 1069 into law last year, Florida public school districts have removed over 300 books from libraries with over 1200 objections filed last year. According to a report by Florida Education and a recent report last month by the Florida Freedom to Read project, over 1600 books are being considered for banning in just one Florida County, including the Miriam Webster Elementary Dictionary, biographies on Thurgood Marshall and Oprah Winfrey, the Autobiography of Malcolm X, along with eight different encyclopedias.

Perhaps the most significant is the current deliberation over whether to ban The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank. According to a 2023 independent survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee, only 26% of respondents could correctly answer four basic questions about the Holocaust. Any attempt to erase history will do nothing but ensure it will repeat - with vengeance. Mr. Chairman, if there were ever a time to stand up to protect the freedom to read for libraries, to engage our citizenry without external pressure, and to fight for the democratic right to learn more about and question the world in which we live, now is that time.

Partisanship and political agendas have no place on our bookshelves. Attempting to limit or restrict literary and historical perspectives and beliefs at our Rhode Island public libraries is inherently undemocratic at a time in our country's history when freedom of speech is in constant persecution. We must remain firm in our belief that all Rhode Islanders are entitled to a wide of ideals and expressions that enable intellectual growth and nuanced educated understanding.

Brian Newberry: I understand that you're concerned about the content of certain books that are removed from libraries in Florida. I may agree with you on that. But are you saying that elected government officials who appropriate the tax dollars that pay for those libraries should not have a say in what goes in those libraries?

Daniel Solomon: I believe that librarians, as trusted professionals, should have discretion over the books that are in their libraries in partnership with the local governments who employ them

Brian Newberry: As a practical matter they're going to have discretion, but if they're in partnership with the local governments who employ them, those governments [shouldn't] have a say in what goes in those libraries? I mean that's where the money's coming from, right?

Daniel Solomon: This is true.

Brian Newberry: Do you have an objection to elected officials who appropriate the funds that pay for the libraries having a say in what goes in the libraries?

Daniel Solomon: I think that the traditional means through which librarians and the community engage with what is offered in libraries, as it currently stands, is an effective source of doing so. I think efforts to ban books, as I have experienced, and my younger sibling has experienced in Florida public schools and libraries, is undemocratic.

---

Bob O'Neill: As a lifelong reader and lover of books, I strongly support this legislation. I am opposed to censorship of any sort and I don't believe that anyone or any entity should have the right to dictate to another individual what they can or cannot read. During the long course of my lifetime, I have read several thousand books, some of which are currently banned in other states and by people who probably haven't even read them simply because they disapprove of the content.

I can honestly state that I have never been harmed emotionally or otherwise by the content of any book I ever read. Reading books has allowed me to learn about other cultures and places I never get to visit and it's given me a better understanding of the history that was omitted and glossed over in high school history class.

Reading about topics such as slavery, racism, the Civil War apartheid, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the struggles of LGBT people for equality has made me a more caring and empathetic human being. Growing up gay in the 1950s, before the internet, when homosexuality was a taboo subject, reading a book with a gay character in it, no matter how minor a part they played in the story, was like a lifeline to me, letting me know that there were others out there like me and I was not alone.

I've also read 1984 and Brave New World and I've studied the history of Nazi Germany and I know I know that book bans are just the first step towards a much wider agenda. So I urge you to support this bill.

---

Cheryl Space: I'm the library director at the Community Libraries of Providence. I'm here today on behalf of the Rhode Island Library Association, which has as members library workers from every city and town in Rhode Island. As Rep Stewart said, the Freedom to Read Act adds crucial language to state legislation to encourage and protect the freedom of public libraries to acquire and deaccession materials without limitations and to be protected against attempts to ban, censor, or otherwise restrict access to books

Libraries hold a unique position in our society. Any person regardless of their political views, socioeconomic status, religious background, gender identity, sexual identity, age, or race can fully participate, for free, in the program services and resources of their public library. Librarians strive to provide a diversity of materials in our collection. Fundamentally, this is about showing respect for everyone in our community. Our shelves are treasure troves of learning, ideas, and stories. Our buildings are a third space where everyone can feel welcome and at home. Most of the challenges we see nationwide are against books written by or about a person of color or a member of the LGBTQIA+ community. Library staff are determined to protect the rights of every person to see themselves on the shelves of our libraries. Unfortunately, this can lead to terrible harassment and accusations, but we stand firm in our convictions.

If you're a person who loves freedom, you also value choice. In a healthy society that respects freedom of choice, libraries must remain able to serve the needs of every library user. We must not be in the business of telling library users which books they are allowed to read. In the case of children, libraries affirm parental rights to inform the choices of their children, but this does not extend to the right to make choices for other people's children. Librarians select books based on a board-approved collection development policy. And remember, the public can raise their concerns and request reconsideration of materials by saying specifically what they object to. Groups attempting to censor benefit from whipping up a frenzy and it's our job to apply the breaks and make room for a thoughtful exchange between information professionals and concerned members of the public.

We want to reduce the tension and drama of any unexamined statements. So if Rhode Island is truly to be “all that” as its new slogan declares, we must affirm every Rhode Islander's right to feel “all in” when they walk through the doors of their public library. Please pass this bill and let all Rhode Island know that they are valued by affirming their history, their point of view, and their stories that they matter and they will be protected in our public library collections.

And to address your question, Representative Newberry, you're right, we have to make choices and there's shelving size and all of that. What this bill is doing is affirming that the librarians, analyzing their community and the issues that are going on, taking input from their political leaders as well as people without any political power at all, then make choices. The public has every right to select books for the collection and often they are purchased and put on the shelves. What we're trying to limit is the ability for people to say, “I don't agree with that subject, therefore it shouldn't be in the library.” That is what this bill is seeking to protect.

Brian Newberry: I agree with you on that. My point is that someone has to decide what's in a library. I get that, as a professional librarian, you want that decision to be yours. I understand that. But if a member of the public comes out and says, “I don't want that,” that's not going to get the book removed from the library.

At some level, shouldn't the city council have the ability to step in if they think the librarian has gone rogue? I'm not saying you would. I'm saying isn't that that's what this bill is preventing really?

Cheryl Space: The public library is not an agency. It's not the voice of the government. The public library is the voice of every resident, so we are separate from political pressure for what we put in our collections. That separation is healthy.

Brian Newberry: You would like to think so, but when you're funded by the taxpayers and you're controlled by the government, ultimately you are. That's the issue. The fundamental issue here is who's going to make the decision... At the end of the day, you have to be responsive to the elected officials who pay the bills. That's the reality of it.

Cheryl Space: If an elected official or any member of the public - there's no more power given to an elected official than anyone else who lives in the community - has an issue with a book that's in the library, they may request reconsideration and detail exactly why they think that book should not be in the collection. At that point, there is a conversation and a decision is rendered. For example, last year in E-zone, in the digital collection, we removed a book based on a complaint. It was not the reason that the person put forward, but we agreed that it did not match [our standards] and it was a bad translation. If the person does not agree with the decision that is made, they have recourse to the board of that organization. There is a complete policy that slows things down.

Unfortunately what we're seeing is long lists of books being presented to libraries and these books all have LGBTQ themes. They say librarians are trying to groom children so you need to remove all of them. Unfortunately, that's a very unexamined point of view. What we do is ask people to submit each book independently with what page, which illustration, and what exactly is the reason that the book should not be in the library. [That] starts a formal process of careful consideration, kindness, and respect between the library and the person. And that person could be an elected official or it could be just someone who lives down the street from the library who's never held any political power.

Brian Newberry: I understand the intent of the bill. I don't object to the intent of the bill, I just think the bill's a disaster. To put it bluntly… I think people need to read this stuff before they talk about it more. I agree with you on philosophy, but the way this is written, it's a mess.

Cheryl Space: We look at this as a statement of policy and belief about how library collections are built. It's not actionable.

---

Marianne Mirando: I'm speaking in full support of the Freedom to Read Act. I'm the librarian at Westerly High School and book censorship has very much been on my mind. I faced a book challenge last year after going through the process outlined in our school library policy.

The committee voted to keep the book on the shelves. Unsatisfied, the complainant filed a police report and attempted to have me prosecuted again. He failed. I was subjected to a couple of harassing phone calls at work and a slanderous email. It was awful, but I kept telling myself, it'll be fine. I live in New England.

Frankly, if I was a younger librarian, it would have been more difficult to withstand. I've had a very long career as a librarian and I have never seen anything like the book censorship movement that has spread via social media by the ironically titled and discredited group Moms for Liberty and other fanatics who assume that their interests should supersede our First Amendment rights.

Library collections should represent the community they serve. Every library contains books that some people like and some people don't. That is the nature of a diverse collection and that is what makes libraries so wonderful.

We all have different tastes and preferences. Our students - I'm speaking as a high school librarian - should be able to access diverse reading material, yet typically the books being targeted are books about historically underrepresented groups and marginalized backgrounds. What message does that send to our students?

One of the advantages of attending a public school is that we don't cater to one specific group of students but rather help to grow curiosity in all of our students. Censoring books denies our students the ability to access information. Books are a safe place to explore topics and curiosities a student may have. They provide different views and perspectives. Reading provides information, expands knowledge, nurtures empathy, and empowers learners. Why would anyone want to limit that?

---

Steven Brown: The ACLU of Rhode Island is here to express our strong support for this legislation. The last few speakers have touched on the points I wanted to make. First, as has been said, this is a declaration of policy. As much as we might like to see something actionable, this bill does not do that. It states what the General Assembly's policy is. It's designed to express an opinion about a very important public issue that is playing out across the country.

In terms of the question, "What about elected officials and their rights?" you've heard it: elected officials have the same right as anybody else to express their concerns about books in the library, to go through the process of reviewing books and reconsider whether they should be on the shelves - but they do not have the right to censor books and this is not a new issue.

Perhaps the best thing I can do to end is give you a quote that deals with censorship in school libraries, a United States Supreme Court opinion from the 1970s. This is the major quote from the main ruling: “In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’” That's what this is all about and so we hope you'll express the legislature's support for this very important principle.

Brian Newberry: You said “As much as some of us would like to see something actionable,” what would you like to see that's actionable?

Steven Brown: If public officials took action to take books out of a library, we think it would be actionable under the First Amendment. I don't think this bill needs a separate cause of action and that's how court cases have been filed under the First Amendment.

Brian Newberry: So it is actionable already is what you're saying.

Steven Brown: You're suggesting this bill makes it actionable. [It already is actionable.]

Brian Newberry: We can quibble about that later. I think it does open up a cause of action, potentially, but here's the larger point. If the city council says remove that book, it's not necessarily a prerogative, but what if they terminate the library contract or the librarian because they don't like what's going on? Is that actionable?

Steven Brown: It depends on what you mean by what's going on.

Brian Newberry: What books are in the collection? That's what I'm talking about

Steven Brown: If the basis for firing a librarian was because the city council objected to the content of the books that the librarian was allowing to be in there, like LGBTQ books, then yes, I think there would be a First Amendment lawsuit under that.

Brian Newberry: But what is the job of a librarian? I mean, I know librarians do a lot of things but isn't the primary job of a librarian to curate the collection? Isn't that the first job?

Steven Brown: That's exactly right and that's why city councilors should not be doing that for them.

Brian Newberry: But who pays the - we can go back and forth. I'm not going to belabor the point.

---

Sadie Jackson: Rhode Island was founded on the principle of freedom and I think, as a young queer person, a student at Classical High School, and the 2023 Deputy Youth Poetry Ambassador of Rhode Island, that being able to choose what I'm reading and having access to books with a variety of perspectives has taught me how to discern what is important to me, my beliefs, to see myself represented in literature, and also to see the perspectives of people who have experienced things that I've not.

It has helped me grow in my writing, in my experience as a student, and as a person who's living in Rhode Island. Having the opportunity to go to the public library and choose a book that hasn't been chosen for me has made me who I am and having any sort of restriction on the books that I can choose to read would have prevented me from finding the types of things that I'm interested in and believe in.

---

Robert Chiardo Jr.: I'm going to look at it from a different perspective. This bill, as written - we know it was written by the American Library Association. Let's be honest here. The ALA wrote this bill.

One of the goals the bill's sponsors is to codify the sexualization and indoctrination of Rhode Island's youth, which in my view will lead to the destruction of these kids and the family unit as we know it. That our kids, some of them, are being destroyed in the process is of no concern to them. I believe this bill was written in a pathetic virtue-signaling way, and I agree with [Representative] Newberry about not putting private organizations into our statutes for that very reason. This bill will allow the General Assembly to grant full authority for the acquisition and deaccession of books and materials without external limitations.

It would protect libraries against attempts to remove or restrict access to books and other materials. This means non-age-appropriate books that depict obscenity, vulgarity, pedophilia, and other sexual acts would be available in school and public libraries or public libraries at the discretion of the librarians only. No input from anyone else.

This is a unilateral gift of power to libraries and librarians. It would be next to impossible for anybody from the outside to have any input at all into what books went into the library and which books came out of the library.

It hides behind, in my view, the hypocrisy of freedom to read as a justification for not removing or at least age-restricting non-age-appropriate books and materials.

I strongly urge the committee to not grant universal or unilateral authority of selection, deaccession, display, and access to any group - least of all one, which besides its bogus claims, is hellbent on the indoctrination of kids, I think the bill needs to be dumped. I think it's a terrible bill like Rep Newberry said, and I think it should be torn up and thrown in the trash.

---

Reverend Gene Dyszlewski: I'm pastor of Limerock Baptist Church and President of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches and I'm here to speak in support of the Freedom to Read Act. I am a member of a religious community that was founded in the state by Roger Williams. He was rabidly committed to intellectual freedom. Our nation's founders understood that intellectual freedom was valuable and important because we are a population that is to some degree self-governing and we're a pluralistic society. There's diversity of people and diversity of ideas, so receiving information is important. I sense that exposure to ideas is how we grow. Exposure to other perspectives is how we engage.

We're encouraged to engage in creative thinking and creative thinking results in something new and something new can come with a certain tension. If it's an old idea, if it's an idea that we're comfortable with, that we're familiar with, then we're comfortable with it. But if it's an idea that's new to a degree, tension may come with it and there are different ways of dealing with that. Hopefully, if you address it with curiosity, it can resolved positively.

I think it was Socrates who said that the tension that comes with new ideas is important because it brings you out of the dungeon of bigotry and into a brighter way of looking at the world. I encourage you to pass this bill.

---

Amy Rodriguez: I just wanted to clear up a few things. Number one, the gentleman who works for the Westerly Library said something about Moms for Liberty being one of the organizations that wanted to ban books. We have not, at any point that I know of, tried to ban any book. [See here.] The issue is about having books that are age-appropriate for children. It is our job as adults, as parents, and as representatives, to make sure our children are protected from things that their brains are not ready to accept. The way that this bill is written takes away my right to make sure that my children - and other children - when they walk into a library do not see things that they are not ready to see.

Every parent and child should feel safe to go into a library to learn. It should be a welcoming environment but at an age-appropriate level. We need to protect them. That's all that I want to say because I believe this bill takes away my rights and the rights of the people who represent me if I want to address my government with any kind of grievance regarding something that's not appropriate for my child.

---

Bill Lancellotta: I am the Assistant Director of Westerly Library in Wilcox Park, a member of the Rhode Island Library Association, and part of the association's Legislative Action Committee. I strongly recommend the passage of the Freedom to Read bill. Legislation has already been proposed in Rhode Island that seeks to criminalize the work of librarians, educators, and museum workers. It is difficult to overstate the importance of recommitting Rhode Island to some of our most basic rights as free citizens. This bill protects our freedom to read in three crucial ways.

First, it states that the responsibility of the government is to protect the freedom to read. Second, it will be the policy of the state to protect the freedom of libraries from external limitations and attempts to ban, remove, or sensor materials. Lastly, this bill prohibits the removal of materials due to partisan or doctrinal approval.

For me, it's hard to believe that some people oppose the freedom to read and refuse to acknowledge that library collections strive to provide every single person in their community with materials to read - even books on sensitive topics such as gender, race, history, and politics. I'm proud to say my library has something to offend everyone, even me, which is as it should be.

I would never think that materials that make me angry or uncomfortable should be removed. That would be wrong. Those books are there for someone else and we should all support their freedom to read whatever they like. It is unconscionable to allow a few people to dictate what others can and cannot read. With the passage of this bill, Rhode Island libraries will be free to build collections that serve the entirety of their communities without fear of reprisals from special-interest or partisan groups.

---

Steve Ahlquist: I trust librarians. As a writer who doesn't have a rented office where I do my work. I depend on the quiet space libraries across the state provide. When I need a book, libraries find it for me. When I need an issue of the 1977 Providence Journal or a 1921 issue of a long-defunct Woonsocket newspaper I get it at a library.

Librarians are the first line of defense for our democracy and against the forces of fascism. Limiting the ability of librarians to supply information to people out of misplaced fear, ignorance or silly calls to protect the children is the beginning of the end for our democracy.

Over the years, librarians have built a code of ethics and a philosophy of providing free information to all. Librarians protect us - not by limiting access to certain books or materials - but by giving us the tools and the access we need to navigate the tricky politics of our world.

I implore you all to trust librarians. I implore you all to protect them so that they can protect us.

And - Here's a thought - maybe it makes no sense, but I'll throw it out anyway. If it helps, think of this as LEOBoR for librarians. We [need] to trust librarians to do their job [and] to regulate themselves [under their] code of ethics.

[I'll add that] I have an objection to elected officials banning books. One hundred percent. As a political system, that's called fascism. Political officials telling us what we can and can't read, whether they have the power of the purse or not, it doesn't matter - I don't want politicians telling me what books could be in the library the same way I don't want politicians telling my chef what seasonings to use or my doctor what instruments to use when they're operating.

If you don't trust librarians on some fundamental level that says more about you than it does about librarians. I do trust librarians. They have never in my life steered me wrong. Since I was a 6-year-old kid in Warwick Public Library learning how to read, librarians have always catered to me in a way that gave me age-appropriate books, satisfied my interests, and never let me down or failed me.

That is what I think about librarians and I think it's really important that you, as a body, protect them as well.

Brian Newberry: I'm sure you're not trying to say that all librarians are saints or perfect.

Steve Ahlquist: Right.

Brian Newberry: The issue is ultimately where's the line drawn? It's one thing to say I trust librarians. My father-in-law's a librarian, he's a university librarian, and I was a trustee of a library for 11 years. I like the two librarians we had. But at some level, there's got to be tension about who makes final decisions. Most of the time librarians make decisions fine, but at some level, the people who pay the taxes and the people who are elected by them have to have some oversight. At the end of the day, isn't this about oversight? What this bill is doing is eliminating the ability for elected bodies to have oversight over librarians who are saying they're we wouldn't do that for other professions. You use the LEOBoR example…

Steve Ahlquist: We just heard testimony that talks about what kind of oversight exists in libraries to do just that work and it gives elected officials and regular people - who, by the way, we shouldn't draw too big a distinction between if we want to maintain our democracy - the right to contest a book if they want. There's a system in place for doing exactly that. So I don't know what more you as an elected person want. Do you want to be in the position of micromanaging libraries?

Brian Newberry: No, I don't. And I don't think it's possible, but a lot of the people coming forward and testifying tonight are sounding like you, saying, “Just let the librarians do it.” And I'm saying I don't know where the line is. This bill, as written, goes well beyond where the line should be, is my point. That's all I'm saying.

Steve Ahlquist: If we're talking about tweaking the bill slightly so that we get to the gist of it without destroying it - that's why you held it for further study.

As a body, you can decide to support the general principles within the bill without opening up unheard-of litigation or whatever. And I will add that if a librarian is fired for sticking to their professional duties or following their code of ethics, but politicians don't like their books or selections, absolutely they should have a right to sue.

Are you saying that if librarians follow every rule and do everything properly but some politicians don't like that and fire them, that's okay? Is that the kind of power we want to give our politicians?

Brian Newberry: No. If a book got someone fired, I agree with you, but if a librarian comes in and has whole sections devoted to things that the community doesn't want and refuses to change...

Steve Ahlquist: I've been inside of almost every library in the state - for hours - and I have never seen anything like that.

I've gone into the Central Falls Library and I see books in Spanish. When I go into East Side Library, the Rochambeau branch, I see plenty of books in the Judaica sections. They cater to their communities. The community wants to see certain types of books and they get them because the librarian, first and foremost, serves the community and they do that well.

Brian Newberry: You're proving why we don't need this bill.

Steve Ahlquist: We've seen threats against librarians in this state too. Like in Westerly, and there's more coming, right? This is not stopping. It's been on the rise - people are objecting to libraries across the country. Rhode Island tends to get ahead of national trends, starting with - somebody mentioned Roger Williams - he got ahead of the trends and preserved certain rights because it's important to preserve them. It wasn't like there was a huge call worldwide to recognize freedom of conscience. He sort of invented the concept and did it here in Rhode Island. We lead the way on this stuff. We can do freedom of conscience here again, in a way. It's a matter of saying that these are principles that we believe in. These are things that are important to us. Libraries are important. And don't forget that Ben Franklin did free libraries. It's in the DNA of America. And I think we should preserve that as best we can.

---

Jane Arnold: I'm a retired teacher and I'm a certified reading specialist. I've taught at every school level, from younger people up through universities. I will try not to repeat what was said here. I think libraries should be open to the public. They are public libraries. This is where I want my tax dollars going. A lot of my tax dollars are going to places I don't like. That's okay. They're good for other people. A lot of the books in the library are things I can't read - I can't read Spanish books, but I'm delighted that they're there because there are a lot of Hispanics in Pawtucket.

There are a lot of books that I look at on the new shelf and think, “Oh, I can't believe it,” but it's important that they're there. I must see them so that I know what's going on in my country and my community.

People are concerned about their children's safety. You can go to the library with your kids. You can take them into the children's room because the librarians sort the books when they get older. The 13-year-old granddaughter of one of my cousins was recently online, not in a library, and got herself tangled up with the algorithms directing her to the group in Europe that was trying to recruit her to come to Europe and work as a sex slave for them.

That would not have happened if she'd been sitting in a library with a book in front of her and then gotten up and walked around to look at other books. Maybe an adult librarian, if somebody was bothering her, would've come over and said, “Hey honey, you want some help looking for something you want?”

Libraries are good, safe places. I've lived in eight states, and 14 communities. I have never met a library I didn't like. There were books I didn't like, but I liked the libraries.

I want to say one more quick thing. Andrew Carnegie established the public library system of Pittsburgh. It's still there. I don't like a lot of Andrew Carnegie's ideas, but he did not say, “You have to have these kinds of books.” He said, “Here's the money. Build a public library. We need an educated populace.”

---

Mira Meladosian: By way of context, I don't have kids. I don't want kids, but I don't think you need to be a parent to find this bill abhorrent. I think it's misguided. I disagree with the focus of it. The bill addresses school libraries, not just public libraries. And it says in the bill that you are prohibited from bipartisan or doctrinal objections. The bill states that you can't object to anything.

To the gentleman earlier who was talking about the book bans that are happening across the country, my question would be, “What if those books are graphically sexual?” We all know the ones that they are.

Would a parent or anyone who's like, “I don't want my elementary school child exposed to a book that teaches them how to give a blow job" [be prevented from complaining] because that’s a doctrinal or partisan objection [per] this bill? Everyone should be able to have their choices, but this is a bill designed to create secrecy and make it difficult for people to have input if not eliminate the possibility to do so.

I hope that everyone will reevaluate it. And with all due respect to the sponsor and the people who co-sponsored it, I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.