Meeting Public Comments

Subcommittee meeting and times are as follows:

Attendance at subcommittee meetings by lobbyists and the public is via zoom or in-person. See agenda for zoom details. Only authenticated users are permitted access.

SF 235

A bill for an act relating to obscenity exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions.

Agenda

Subcommittee members: Salmon-CH, Pike, Quirmbach

Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025

Time: 10:00 AM - 10:30 AM

Location: Senate Lounge

Comments Submitted:

The purpose of comments is to provide information to members of the subcommittee.

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

02-20-2025

Erin Finnegan-Andrews

This bill is NOT necessary! Public libraries and schools serve diverse communities with different values and beliefs. Exemptions ensure that materials remain available for those who seek them rather than being removed due to subjective standards. Without exemptions, obscenity laws could be used to ban classic literature, scientific texts, and diverse perspectives. This could disproportionately impact marginalized voices and hinder a wellrounded education. Librarians are trained professionals that carefully curate library and school collections based on educational value, literary merit, and ageappropriateness. They are best equipped to make decisions about content rather than broad, potentially vague obscenity laws. Libraries and schools already provide parents with tools to guide their children's reading choices. Exempting them from obscenity laws prevents unnecessary government interference while still allowing local decisionmaking and parental involvement. The government is not a parent. Keep public libraries public. Listen to your constituents!

02-20-2025

Sam B

Vote no on SF 235! Most citizens do not want this bill passed, and it would be a detriment to everyone who uses a library in more ways than you'd think! Libraries exist to serve everyone in every community with different values and beliefs. There are already obscenity laws and processes for those who subjectively think something is "inappropriate." Follow those! Don't take the freedom of choice away from everyone else because of some agenda. It is wasting and will continue to waste taxpayers' money on litigation. Without exemptions, obscenity laws could be used to ban classic literature, scientific texts, and diverse perspectives. Librarians are not out to get people! They carefully curate collections based on educational value, literary merit, and ageappropriateness. They already provide parents tools to guide their children's reading choices....which the parents are who should be monitoring what their children read or view! This bill will affect adult romance, adult memoirs and biographies, anything in a library would no longer be safe because anyone could decide that it's too inappropriate. Ridiculous! Let parents be parents, not the government. Let librarians be librarians. Listen to your contituents!

02-20-2025

John Kenyon

Please vote NO on this bill.This is needless legislation that seeks to allow the most narrowminded person in a community or, one fears, anyone passing through to take offense at the presence of materials in a library, lodge a complaint, and then cause the library time and expense to either defend itself against the complaint or move or remove materials. This tremendous overreach will have a chilling effect on library collections and the actions of staff at a time when no one with any sense is asking for such Big Brother oversight. There are plenty of controls in place that allow people to talk with library staff if they have concerns, and review processes that allow for actual discussion and deliberation of these issues at the community level. We don't need the legislature to set blanket rules to deal with local issues.

02-20-2025

Alycia Lentz

Please do NOT pass SF 235. Libraries are not intellectual safe spaces and books do not exist, and have never existed, to protect people from ideas. Let parents decide what their children are mature enough for and respect the intelligence of Iowans. To pass this bill would be to apply a tiny minority view of "obscenity" onto the people against their will. Children and young adults can and should engage with difficult topics at ageappropriate levels, which our librarians, library boards, educators, and parents are already ensuring. Librarians are not filling children's and young adult sections with pornography and it is profoundly offensive to suggest that they are. Let's celebrate curiosity and the opportunities for discussion that it provides. No children would be made safer by this bill divisions in society and struggles with sexuality and identity will not disappear even if the books are removed. Instead, the children who would benefit from these books will be isolated and made to feel ashamed and alone and unwelcome. THAT is harmful to children, and THAT is what is obscene.

02-20-2025

Sam Helmick

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Senate File 235, which seeks to repeal the obscenity exemptions currently protecting public libraries and educational institutions in Iowa. This bill represents a troubling trend of unfounded calls to overhaul the leadership and policies of locally led libraries and institutions of learning, undermining the invaluable services they provide to our communities.Its important to recognize that many works featuring sexual themes exist in both the religious and classical literature. For instance, the Song of Solomon contains explicit romantic and sexual imagery, while classical works such as Ovids "Metamorphoses" and Shakespeares "Romeo and Juliet" explore love and desire in profound and often explicit ways. These texts are integral to our cultural and literary heritage, and their presence in libraries underscores the need for diverse materials that reflect the complexity of human experience.The existing Iowa Code already recognizes the importance of educational materials and provides a framework for assessing obscenity through the Miller Test established by the Supreme Court. This test ensures that materials in public libraries are judged based on serious literary, scientific, political, or artistic value, in accordance with community standards. By attempting to dismantle these protections, this bill unjustly targets library workers who dedicate their time and efforts to enriching the lives of Iowans every day.Such continued attacks on library leadership and policies not only fail to reflect the realities of our communities but also perpetuate a harmful narrative that stigmatizes the professionals committed to fostering learning and access to information. The work of library staff is crucial to ensuring that all members of our community have access to diverse resources and the freedom to explore ideas without fear of censorship.Instead of casting aspersions on our libraries and their workers, we should be supporting them in their mission to serve the public good. I urge lawmakers to reconsider the motivations behind this bill and recognize the essential role libraries play in promoting education, selfimprovement, and freedom of expression in Iowa.

02-20-2025

Marilyn Moser

Please vote no on this bill. Our libraries provide essential services to so many in our communities. I am a small town librarian and I can assure you that we are not pushing obscene books at your children and grandchildren.

02-20-2025

Elizabeth Walker Walker

I strongly disagree with SF 235 and urge my representatives to vote NO! As a mother of three children, I do not feel that this bill is protecting me or my family. It is stripping me of my right to choose what materials I deem appropriate for myself and my children. Librarians are educated and trained to curate a collection of materials available to the public. Their choice of diverse books represents the beautiful and diverse world we live in! Diversity is not obscene, and yet it is these diverse perspectives this bill aims to remove from our libraries. I live in a small town with a small library. This bill would severely limit our library and its services to our community. I love my library. Vote NO.

02-20-2025

Megan Schincke

Vote NO! Public libraries are not providing obscene materials to children. They are not groomers. They are vital to a free and educated society. They offer resources at no cost in a safe environment for everyone. Consider the years of hard work that were put into making the Public Library System the invaluable resource it is for so many citizens today and why it was so important to the founding fathers and other people of great importance in the United States at that time and has continued to be so to this today. Don't take away our freedom of access to information. Voting yes for this bill is voting against the very values our Founding Fathers worked and fought to make constitutional rights and not just privileges only the rich and powerful can access. Vote no.

02-20-2025

Megan Schincke

Vote NO! Public libraries are not providing obscene materials to children. They are not groomers. They are vital to a free and educated society. They offer resources at no cost in a safe environment for everyone. Consider the years of hard work that were put into making the Public Library System the invaluable resource it is for so many citizens today and why it was so important to the Founding Fathers and other people of great importance in the United States since the 1700s and has continued to be so to this day. Don't take away our freedom of access to information. Voting yes for this bill is voting against the very values our Founding Fathers worked and fought to make constitutional rights and not just privileges only the rich and powerful can access. Vote no.

02-20-2025

Isaiah Greimann

Just as public forums were so important to the Greek and Roman civilizations before us, so is the library important to our communities! The library service has a place for people to gather and for people to discuss different ways of life and culture, and be able to understand one another. Every one of us, especially here in Iowa, have come from different places and backgrounds, and it is my firm belief that libraries serve as a catalyst for understanding the lives and experiences of other persons in our community.

02-20-2025

Theo Prineas

Vote no on this bill. Libraries are informational institutions that provide knowledge of many sides on an issue. That means pretty much anyone can find something in the collection that they will agree or disagree with, no matter where you sit on certain issues. It's not appropriate for the legislature to step in and impose one perspective onto library collections, because it eliminates the option of reading broadly to gain a multifaceted understanding.

02-20-2025

Emma Stoffer

Every item in a library, public or academic, belongs there. Every item in a library, public or academic, has serious literary, scientific, political, or artistic value. Every book used for instruction by an educator is one that has serious literary, scientific, political, or artistic value. Librarians and educators can and will defend their books and materials, but removing the exemption provided by Iowa Code 728 exposes these professionals to legal and financial risks and wastes taxpayer money, of which there is already a shortage. There are already functional policies and procedures that allow the public to challenge and submit materials for reconsideration. Concerns over materials used in instruction should be addressed at the local level, not by sweeping legislation. Instead of allowing these issues to be handled locally, the state is attempting to strip Iowans of their First Amendment rights and the right to a library free from censorship. Furthermore, public libraries are voluntary institutions. No one is forced to come into the library. No one is required to read every book in the library. No one has to finish a book that they arent enjoying or dont agree with it. I believe in the freedom to read. Do not pass Senate File 235.

02-20-2025

Theresa Pagliai

I strongly oppose SF 235. The goal of a public library is to provide a wide array of material without regard to personal opinion on the material offered. Iowa has an obscenity law on the books and there is no library in this state that has a collection policy that does not adhere to it. I urge you to look for yourselves. Pick 5 libraries from across the state and review their collection policies. There is no need for this legislation! Also, the idea that libraries are in the business of harming children is ridicules. Make an appointment to talk with your local children's librarian and gauge for yourself. Do not legislate based on a small group of people who want to push their worldview on everyone else.

02-21-2025

Bobbi Newman

I strongly oppose SF 235, which seeks to remove the obscenity exemption for public libraries and educational institutions. This bill is a direct attack on intellectual freedom, free speech, and the ability of libraries to serve their communities.Why This Bill is Dangerous:Opens Libraries to Frivolous Lawsuits: The current exemption protects libraries from baseless lawsuits. Removing it would allow anyone to repeatedly sue a library over materials they personally dislike, regardless of merit, draining public resources and time.Financial Devastation for Libraries and Cities: The cost of defending against endless lawsuits could cripple a librarys budget and force cities to reconsider whether they can afford to support a public library at all. This bill creates unnecessary financial and legal risks that could ultimately lead to library closures.Existing Laws Already Address Obscenity: There is no need for this bill. The Miller Test and Serious Value Test already define obscenity in the law. The current exemption does not allow libraries to distribute pornographyit only protects educational materials.Encourages Censorship and Government Control of Information: SF 235 would pave the way for book bans and censorship, allowing the state to restrict access to books and materials that have educational, historical, or cultural value. Public libraries exist to serve all members of the community, not just those who seek to control what others can read.Strips Citizens of Their Right to Free and Open Libraries: Libraries are pillars of democracy, providing access to information, diverse perspectives, and lifelong learning. Removing this exemption threatens the fundamental purpose of public librariesto offer information freely and without censorship.I urge you to oppose SF 235 and stand up for the right to read, intellectual freedom, and the continued existence of accessible public libraries in Iowa. This bill is unnecessary, harmful, and a dangerous step toward statesponsored censorship.

02-21-2025

Jennifer Beall

Vote no on this bill! Libraries exist to provide access to information for all people. This bill would limit access to information by restricting the content available in libraries. I have gone through a library science graduate program in the state of Iowa and can say that librarians are trained on best practices for collection development. They are not giving obscene materials to children, as this bill suggests. Iowa legislators should stop giving into culture war rhetoric and let trained information professionals do their jobs. There are plenty of books in Iowa's libraries that I don't agree with, but I respect others' rights to be able to access those materials.

02-21-2025

Christine Barth [Scott County Library System]

I am a parent and a Christian and I strive to protect my children from many things, including sexual scenes in books. However, I am also a librarian and know that many families in my community hold different values than mine. I should not be the gatekeeper for their morals. Where does it stop when you start legislating what people can and can't read? In a public library, there is always a choice to choose and ask for and recommend cleaner materials. You don't need to take away that choice from others.

02-21-2025

Denise Smith

Vote NO!!! Please continue to allow libraries to provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues to all members of our communities. The decisions of what individuals (no matter the age) choose to check out at the library should be left up to the INDIVIDUALS NOT THE GOVERNMENT. For individuals that are minors, it is the responsibility of the PARENTS to control what their children are looking at or reading.

02-21-2025

Chris Hubbs

Please vote NO on SF 235. This bill is unnecessary and serves only as a chilling force on our libraries. Libraries would be open to frivolous lawsuits that would run up significant legal costs for our community. Obscenity has already been defined via the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test and libraries are already prevented from distributing potentially obscene material that does not have educational value. Libraries are a vast source of valuable educational information that need to be protected, not attacked.

02-21-2025

Jeff Collins

I strongly urge you to vote NO on this bill. The public library exemption in the obscenity code is designed to protect libraries from frivolous lawsuits. Removing this exemption would allow individuals to repeatedly sue libraries over materials they find objectionable, regardless of the validity of their claims. This bill effectively establishes a "bounty" system, offering a $10,000 reward for each infraction! Should this bill be enacted, it would pose substantial risks and liabilities to municipalities, potentially leading to the closure of all 544 public libraries in Iowa! There are already processes in place to remove books from libraries. I urge you to consider the implications of this legislation carefully.

02-21-2025

Brianna Sholly

Vote NO! Families should have access to what they want to read without it being censored by the government. Parents can always choose to not let their child read a title at the library, but librarians and the government shouldn't be the ones making that decision. Every family is different and a library should remain representative of ALL people in the community. This law would do much more harm than good.As a children's librarian in a public library, I can confirm that I don't agree with the views of every book on the shelf, but I know that others appreciate the titles that I do not. I should only be able to make those censorship decisions on my own family, not the entire community. Let parents be parents.

02-21-2025

Taylor Erickson

SAY NO!!! I strongly oppose Iowa SF 235, which would repeal obscenity exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions. This bill threatens intellectual freedom and could lead to unnecessary censorship of educational materials. Educators and librarians need the flexibility to provide diverse and ageappropriate resources that enrich learning and cultural understanding. Restricting access to these materials would harm students education and limit public access to important information. I urge lawmakers to reject SF 235 and protect educational integrity in Iowa.

02-21-2025

Lexie Reiling

I urge you to vote NO on this bill. This bill would circumvent process that libraries already have in place to express concern about materials and would add in the threat of expensive and frivolous lawsuits, wasting taxpayer dollars. Parents should be the ones determining what materials are appropriate for their children, not the government.

02-21-2025

Jodie Morin

The patrons served by public libraries in Iowa are naturally highly varied. We all like to engage in different activities and read different books and media. Each of us has the right to choose and isn't that a wonderful gift? No one gets to determine the "right" or "proper" things for everyone else. This bill would strip away that protection from public libraries. Instead of getting ready for the summer reading program to help stave off "summer shrink" in reading scores for elementary school students, this legislation would force librarians to deal with lawsuits against material that one person has deemed obscene or harmful. There are certainly other means in place for citizens to lodge objections against materials they object to in libraries. This legislation is unnecessary and ultimately serves no one. Please vote no on SF 235.

02-21-2025

Rachel McKenny

This bill is ridiculous. It would tie up precious city and town funds into frivolous lawsuits, and also tie up librarian time into doing less to serve their communities. There are already protections against obscene materials in our libraries. Please focus on bills that serve our communities!

02-21-2025

Anne Mangano

I am writing to express my dissent on this bill. Please vote no. There is a legal test to determine if something is obsceneemphasis on legal. It is highly subjective, and the determination can only be made by a court after an injured party brings a suit. Opinions on what is obscene varies person to person. Any titles in a public library would stand up in court (they would pass the Miller test), but the potential suits are the issue. These proposed changes to obscenity laws would lead to a significant amount of staff time at libraries, municipal/county attorney's offices, and an increase in tort liability for those jurisdictions, not to mention the fear in selecting and maintaining certain titles in the library. That is why public libraries are exempt: to shield institutions that are vulnerable to questions about obscenity. Otherwise, these agencies could be viewed as legally liable and would be pulled into court book by book for a judge to determine if something is obscene or not. This would significantly curtail access to information and lead to taxpayer money to defend against frivolous lawsuits. I recommend reading "The Most Dangerous Book: The Battle for James Joyce's Ulysses" by Kevin Birmingham to learn more about how obscenity laws work.

02-21-2025

Nancy isebrand

This bill would revoke rights granted by the Freedom of Press, Freedom of Expression, and the freedom to read. Public libraries are available to provide books of ALL kinds of interests to ALL walks of life. Patrons have a right to read what they want, just like they have the right to listen to what music they like, watch movies and series they like, and participate in social media of their choice, even if a government official does not agree with those choices. I feel that because the government is not willing to take on those big producers of music, television, and social media, they are attacking where they think they can control people. Instead of wasting time and energy on such bills as this, all should be educating patrons and students on free choice and how to read, think, and discuss issues to make informed choices, not just do what they are told. We, as a people, have the moral obligation to teach people how to think and make choices, NOT to follow the latest trend or biased leaders. Please do NOT pass this law.

02-21-2025

Evelyn Nikkel [PELLA PAC]

Evelyn Nikkel with PELLA PAC. In favor and praise God for repealing 728.7, the loophole used by public libraries and educational programs of appropriate material for educational purposes to stack our libraries with obscenities intentionally aimed at our children.Iowa law 728.1 defines obscenity in clear and concise terms, prohibiting minors from being exposed. When Iowa legislature passed a law in 2023 forcing those materials out of public schools manipulating this loophole, we taxpayers who fund well over 90% of public schools and libraries watched incredulously as some schools fought tooth and nail to keep very obscene materials in elementary, middle and high schools, delaying full implementation for over a year.Our libraries continue this grooming barrage against our young people with the same loophole. Librarians and Boards have exhibited a total disregard of the spirit of Iowas strong laws on obscenity against minors. They determinedly and intentionally are pulling out all stops to make sure they keep this filth continually in front of our children in libraries. In fact, most of the 544 public libraries in Iowa subscribe to the Iowa Library Association which adheres strictly to the American Library Association, a Marxist, godless group hell bent on flooding our minors with sexually explicit graphic novels, violent R rated streaming videos, adult audio books and LGBTQ+ deviant sexual behaviors. Businesses cant merchandise this smut, but our taxpayer funded public libraries intersperse it on their shelves to ambush children as young as fiveyearsold, especially targeting young people. Yes, repeal this loophole and protect our vulnerable, curious, immature minors the way the law was meant to be. Make the breaking of this law enforceable with strong, longlasting penalties for those who prey on our precious children and violate our laws. Iowa is counting on you to stand strong.

02-21-2025

Michelle Andersen

Please vote no on this proposal. It will detrimentally affect day to day service of libraries all over our state. Librarians are trained to curate a collection of materials for their community's needs. Librarians should not be expected to act as parents making judgements on whether material in the library is age appropriate for any particular child. That should remain the parent's role. I'm especially concerned with the financial impact this will create with libraries and having to defend their professional selections in court.

02-21-2025

Glenda Mulder

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.This bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. Please trust library materials selection to the people who have been trained to do so, NOT to politicians.

02-21-2025

Evelyn Nikkel [PELLA PAC]

02-21-2025

Kathryn Runde

This is an insult to librarians and all Iowans. I strongly oppose this absurd attempt at censorship and at villainizing some of our most hard working, knowledgeable, and helpful public employees in libraries. I'm an author, and a former Iowa public school teacher, and I see this as a waste of the legislature's time and resources and an obvious distraction from the agenda of gutting our most valuable institutions. I am much more concerned with making sure Iowa children are fed, educated in FULLY FUNDED schools, and safe from school gun violence than them reading books chosen by highly educated and thoughtful professional librarians or attending an event that welcomes and celebrates our neighbors and community members. Please do not waste another minute on this bill and focus on making Iowa a state I can be proud to raise my kids in again by funding public education and voting no on this ridiculous bill.

02-21-2025

Honey Bedell

Please vote no on SF235. This bill is unnecessary, as current law already addresses obscenity and value issues, and it currently provides exemptions only for educational purposes. Libraries also have policies in place already for citizens to request potentially objectionable materials be removed. This bill also opens libraries and cities to repeated, frivolous lawsuits, which will require staff time and public funds to address. Please do not infringe on Iowans' right to choose what they read.

02-21-2025

Mary Henson

Please vote No one this bill which seeks to micro management Iowa's libraries and Librarians. There are already procedures in place to assess the content of books and other media in their possession. Librarians are trained to categorize age appropriateness. Libraries are already set up with children's, youth. Young adult. And over 18 sections with sections of fiction. Non fiction and self help. For instance. Oberreach in terms of obscenity can and has put unnecessary roadblocks on legitimate concerns such as breast and testicular cancer for example. Please vote No on this unnecessary bill.

02-21-2025

Elijah Stines

This bill Will cost many taxpayer dollars with frivolous challenges and lawsuits. There are already protections in place and the vast majority of comments are opposed to this legislation.If you don't like a book, don't read it. It is not that hard to understand.

02-21-2025

Jamie Noack

I urge you to vote no on SF235. Libraries make Iowa communities happier, more productive, and more resilient. Libraries drive economic growth through programs that assist with job seekers; by connecting small businesses with the resources they need; and by enabling lifelong learning for Iowans to develop new skills. This bill targets nonprofit organizations that exist to support all libraries. While advocacy efforts are an important aspect of these organizations, to reduce their work to that single action is an egregious mischaracterization of their purpose. The American Library Association, the American Association of School Libraries, and the Iowa Library Association among so many others, are organizations that provide professional guidance, resources, and publications that support all librarians and library users. Public libraries and public librarians in Iowa have the right to seek professional development without putting their funding in jeopardy. Professionals in other fields, private and public, are encouraged to pursue opportunities that strengthen their careers and allow them to network with their colleagues. Over 850 municipalities in Iowa are members of the Iowa League of Cities, an organization that provides professional guidance, resources, and publications that support city leaders. Additionally, they provide advocacy tools. Iowa library professionals deserve access to professional development opportunities. Iowa library professionals deserve access to networking opportunities. Iowa library professionals deserve access to guidance from leaders in their field. Iowa library professionals deserve access to resources and publications from experts in their field. Iowa library professionals deserve to have people advocating for them. I do not support SF 235.

02-21-2025

Liz P

I am strongly opposed to this bill. Parents should absolutely be aware of the materials their children are reading, but it's not up to others to decide what my children are reading. There is absolutely no need for this. This would simply create space for a very few to bog down the system with frivolous lawsuits, taking valuable time away from our librarians to do their jobs which includes providing access to a wide range of materials for all people in our communities. I do not support this. Let me parent my children and the government can stay out of my children and my choices of materials.

02-21-2025

Jamie Noack

I am strongly opposed to SF 235. Libraries are designed to be places of open ideas. A place to explore new ideas and learn. Libraries are by design, nonpartisan. You can find books representing both sides of the aisle. The mission of our community library is that they are a place where ALL can meet, learn and grow. One small group of individuals should not be able to dictate what everyone can read. A small group of parents should not be able to make decisions for all parents. The beauty of the first amendment is that it allows individuals to make their own choices. If you don't like the content, don't read the book. Choose something else.

02-21-2025

Jill Weigel

Please vote NO on SF235. Libraries are essential to our community. This bill is not needed and it infringes on the rights of people. If it were to go through, there would essentially be no romance books/materials, no PG13+ movies available, and the right to choice of library materials would be much more limited. People deserve to find what they want at the library. It isn't as though there is porn being displayed and I have never known of someone being damaged or harmed through anything they have found at the library. Vote NO to protect our civil rights and freedoms.

02-21-2025

Jillian Rutledge

Please vote NO on SF235. 1) Obscenity is already defined by law, there is no need for more legislation that addresses that. 2) This would further restrict Iowans' rights to determine for themselves what they or their children can have access to. 3) Cities will be under tremendous financial burden when facing numerous frivolous lawsuits as a result of this legislation.

02-21-2025

Megan Bannister

I strongly oppose SF235, which seeks to remove the obscenity exemption for public libraries and educational institutions. Now more than ever public libraries are a vital resource to our communities and this bill will greatly hinder their ability to serve patrons who are often part of marginalized or already underserved populations. Put simply, this bill is a direct attack on intellectual freedom and the public's access to unbiased collections. As an Iowan and an author, I find it shameful that the legislators of a state whose motto heralds "prizing our liberties" and "maintaining our rights" spend so much time actively infringing upon the rights of their constituents. Please vote no on SF235 and maintain the public's access to these vital community resources.

02-21-2025

Anne Wilmoth

I am opposed to SF235. This bill is in violation of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and goes against established principles of anticensorship and intellectual freedom in a democratic society. Public libraries serve diverse communities comprising a broad variety of ages, backgrounds, perspectives, needs, and interests. Professional, credentialed librarians select materials thoughtfully and carefully, and employ a rigorous and regimented organizational system that already separates materials based on age. Parents' rights are extremely important that's why parents should set boundaries and expectations with their own children about what materials are appropriate for them to access and allowed in their family based on values whether accessing information on the internet, in print materials from the library, or other sources. It is up to each parent to determine what is right for their own children.

02-21-2025

Charlotte Brookins

I strongly oppose this legislation and urge you to vote no on this bill. Current obscenity laws already define obscenity through the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test; not only would this law be obsolete, but it would also force crippling, pointless legal fees onto libraries, preventing them from pursuing their goal of serving the public. Furthermore, this bill restricts free speech and the freedom to read, two major tenets that librariesand citizens in generalhold in high esteem. This bill would make it so individuals could sue the library for any material they find objectionable, regardless of the merit of their claim. Please, vote no!

02-21-2025

MARGARET HOEL

NOTE NO ON SF235The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit.

02-21-2025

Wendy Doyel

I strongly urge you to vote NO on this bill! Censorship like this is a very slippery slope, a beginning of a piece of history we've already been through and I for one do not want to see it start again on American soil. Libraries are not here to "groom" children, they are here to be a friend to all people old and young. A place where people can go to not be judged or "censored" for their thoughts and/or beliefs. A place many find refuge, help, or just peace. We as Americans have a basic right to free speech and access to information that this bill is grossly infringing on. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship.

02-21-2025

Chris Stoner

Please do not pass this bill. This bill goes against core library values by encouraging censorship, and would create a similar chilling effect environment in our public libraries that Iowa's school libraries are already experiencing as a result of SF496. SF496's unclear guidelines have created an environment of selfcensorship and overcensorship on the part of school libraries for fear of being hit with criminal charges without any sort of notice or process in place. Public libraries already have robust collection development policies that determine which collection an item should be placed in in the library, as well as processes for appealing for the reconsideration of materials that members of the public take issue with. The only purpose this bill would serve would be to make it easier for members of the public file frivolous SLAPP suits against materials that educational and cultural value, but that that individual takes personal issue with. This would create an undue financial burden on cities and encourage libraries to avoid building a library collection of robust viewpoints for fear of being sued. Concerns about content and age appropriateness of materials are all excellent conversations for parents to have with their children, and those conversations about negotiating boundaries with each other regarding what materials are right for their family should be handled on a familytofamily basis.

02-21-2025

Jessica LInk

Please vote NO on SF 235. This bill is not "solving" any real issues in our public libraries. However, if it is passed, it will create multiple challenges and have chilling and unintended consequences on library operations and intellectual freedom in Iowa.

02-21-2025

Joe Demarest

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Senate File 235, which seeks to repeal the obscenity exemptions currently protecting public libraries and educational institutions in Iowa. The continued antiintellectualism and pearl clutching selfrighteousness is making Iowa look like a poor imitation of Texas. It is also ensuring that anyone with a bright mind will avoid pursuing higher education in this state. I'm guessing many families considering moving here will avoid it if they want their child to receive a meaningful education. Finally, I have spoken to a number of young people who had said they are waiting to move out of state before having kids because they don't believe Iowa will provide a good place for them to grow and learn.Do something to improve the lives of the majority of Iowans rather than being the sexobsessed gestapo.

02-21-2025

Stacy Goodhue

Please vote no on SF 235. There are many good reasons to vote no on this measure that are listed in the comments. I am asking to you to look at it differently. The measures that attack libraries will most likely end up challenged in court. Disagreements between citizens and the library will result in costly legal disputes and the State (and/or cities) will need to pay for the lawsuits even if the lawsuit goes in your favor. Is this worth the cost to our tax payers? Our cities already scrutinizing every dollar of our budgets to make sure we maximize the value of every dollar. Is it right to add more financial burden on our cities and therefore our tax payers?

02-21-2025

Scott Brown

Please vote no to this proposed bill. It is an obvious attempt by the misguided "book burners" to harass and damage our wonderful public library systems. I strongly object to outside entities censoring library materials. Obscenity is clearly defined in the law and all this does is divert time and resources from Iowa's public library, Shame on you for even considering this bill

02-21-2025

Paula Mitchell

Please vote no to this bill, which is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent with respect to our first amendment rights. Libraries are valued institutions and stewards of information operating based on widely accepted professional standards. As a parent, I took responsibility for oversight of my childs reading and for providing necessary context. Libraries already curate content based upon professional standards, and it is the responsibility of parents to help their children to choose age appropriate content, and to help interpret content that needs context. Do not strip our right to choose so that others can take a hands off approach to providing oversight and interpretation for their own children. This legislation is damaging to public libraries and to civil liberties. As a reader, I highly value my right to choose what materials are appropriate for me and for my family. No one is forced to check out a book from the public library, but it is fundamental to our freedom that we protect the right to choose.

02-21-2025

Dana Hinders

Librarians and educators are trained professionals who thoughtfully curate collections based on educational value, literary merit, and age appropriateness. They are far better equipped to make content decisions than broad, vague obscenity laws. Schools and libraries already provide parents with tools to guide their children's reading choices, allowing for local decisionmaking and parental involvement without unnecessary government interference.The government should not dictate what the public can read. Keep public libraries public. Listen to your constituents and reject this bill!

02-21-2025

Carol Sensor

Vote NO on this bill. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. Also, this bill is unnecessary because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.Further, this bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. The exemption in current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning that the only time a library could claim the exemption is for educational purposes. If a library was distributing pornographic material, it would not be exempt.Again, vote NO.

02-22-2025

Brenda Curran [Brenda Curran for Iowa]

Vote No on this Bill. First of all where did this bill originate from? What current problem does this bill solve? This bill is a cultural distraction. It is meant to divide. Iowans demand better of our elected representatives. If you support and pass this kind of legislation the voters will not forget the shame you have brought to our beautiful state.

02-22-2025

Ashley Massa

I strongly disagree with SF 235 and urge my representatives to vote NO! I do not feel that this bill is protecting me or my family. It is stripping me of my right to choose what materials I deem appropriate for myself and my children. Librarians are educated and trained to curate a collection of materials available to the public. Their choice of diverse books represents the beautiful and diverse world we live in! Diversity is not obscene, and yet it is these diverse perspectives this bill aims to remove from our libraries. Vote NO.

02-22-2025

Malavika Shrikhande

I strongly urge you to vote NO on this bill.The public library exemption in the obscenity code currently protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If removed, individuals could repeatedly sue libraries over materials they object to, regardless of merit, leading to a costly and harmful legal environment.The bill restricts free speech and access to information, allowing the state to ban books and materials with educational and cultural value from libraries and schools. This bill undermines the fundamental right of citizens to access a library free from censorship. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test (The Miller test is a threepart test that the US Supreme Court uses to determine if something is obscene https://www.justice.gov/)Please carefully consider the farreaching implications of this legislation. Thank you!

02-22-2025

K. Kruse

VOTE NO regarding the HF274 bill! Protect our Right to Read and Freedom of Speech! The public library is a safe place for ALL, providing all types of literature and resources for all ages. Keep this a place for freedoms of speech and expression. If you dont approve of a book, then dont check it out, that simple. Parents should be responsible for minors library sections, not the government. Books and libraries are not the enemy! Focus on items for the good of Iowans.

02-22-2025

Chelsea Sims

Vote no. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. The number of lawsuits this bill would lead to would be a huge waste of taxpayer money as it is blatantly unconstitutional.

02-22-2025

Molly Altorfer

Please vote NO on this bill. There is already a legal definition for obscenity that all public libraries must follow. It is called the Miller Test, and it is widely recognized. The exemption mentioned above protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption is removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over material they personally object to, regardless of merit. The exemption in the current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning the only time the library could claim an exemption would be for educational purposes. Please exercise common sense and vote NO on SF 235.

02-22-2025

Karen Lehmann

Vote NO on SF235, which seeks to remove the obscenity exemption for public libraries and educational institutions. Such protections already exist. This bill is a direct attack on intellectual freedom, free speech, and the ability of libraries to serve their communities.

02-22-2025

Kristie VanGorkom

Please vote NO on this bill. Obscenity by definition is already excluded from libraries via the Miller Test. All this bill will do is waste taxpayer money on lawsuits from people who just don't like particular books; not "obscene" materials, as they don't exist in libraries by default. Frivolous lawsuits are a burden on all taxpayers vote NO on this bill.

02-22-2025

Darrell Aaron

Please vote no. This is not a problem that we have but will only be used to punish libraries and their communities. This bill is poorly written and is wideopen to interpretation. Additionally, communities and libraries already have a mechanism for removing books that do not conform to community standards. Please stop wasting your time on nonproblems and do something that will actually help the people of the state of Iowa lead better lives.

02-22-2025

Zach Row-Heyveld

I am strongly opposed to this bill. It is wholly unnecessary and will expose cities and counties to frivolous, expensive lawsuits brought on by bad actors. Protecting children is certainly commendable, but this bill wont actually do it.

02-22-2025

Jan Netolicky

Here we go again. Please quit trying to police free thought with yet another unnecessary attempt to legislate morality. Vote NO on SF235. Libraries are a much needed community resource intended to serve all patrons. Librarians are trained professionals who curate collections that reflect the entirety of a population and scrupulously abide by the constraints of the legal definition of obscenity. The Miller Test is widely accepted as the standard for all public libraries. I can only imagine the fiscal carnage inflicted on libraries should SF235 pass. Legal fees to defend what is currently addressed by the obscenity exemption could be a death knell to libraries operating with limited funds. Is your goal to eliminate public libraries entirely, or simply to mold them into a oneideologyfitsall mentality? Let's call this what it is another attempt to marginalize certain segments of the population. While some patrons may not like every title on the shelves, that doesn't give them the right to limit access to materials by other patrons. Nor should they be able to sue the library frivolously because of their personal objections to said material. Extrapolate the logic behind this bill to other areas of life: You might choose not to attend a movie with an "R" rating because it may assault your sensibilities. Do you then have the right to sue the movie theater for showing "R" rated movies? Come on. How about a little common sense and faith in personal responsibility? Vote NO.

02-22-2025

Jim Fink

So, now you want to meddle with public libraries. With some of our lakes and streams closed because of pollution every summer, school shootings, hazardous pipeline land condemnations and underfunded public schools, this is the issue you want to pursue? Really? What is it about public education that so upsets you people? As statesmen and leaders, you are pathetic. Just because certain people in the Pella area are filled with hate and stupidity, doesn't mean the rest of us are poisoned as well. Our libraries are locally controlled, I know that upsets certain people under the golden dome of wisdom but it is, by far, the best form of government for the people. Let it work.

02-22-2025

Kelsey VanderWerf [Charles City Community School District]

I am writing to express my strong opposition to SF235, which seeks to exempt public libraries and educational institutions from obscenity laws. While I firmly support intellectual freedom and oppose censorship, this bill could create legal ambiguities that undermine the mission of libraries and schools to provide diverse and educational content. Public libraries and schools serve as vital institutions that provide access to a broad spectrum of ideas and perspectives. Any attempt to regulate content through broad obscenity laws risks imposing undue restrictions on literature, art, and educational materials. It is essential that these institutions remain places of open access to information without the fear of censorship. The First Amendment protects free speech and ensures that individuals have the right to access information. Courts have long recognized that obscenity laws must be carefully tailored to avoid infringing upon these rights (Miller v. California, 1973). Allowing exemptions for public institutions affirms their role in fostering intellectual inquiry and preventing undue suppression of ideas. Public institutions should not be subjected to undue content restrictions that hinder their ability to provide comprehensive educational materials. Libraries and educators are wellequipped to make responsible content decisions that reflect the educational and literary needs of their communities without external censorship. Attempts to broadly regulate materials under obscenity laws could limit access to important works, our states and nations history, and undermine academic freedoms. Rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions, we should champion policies that protect access to information while allowing communities to engage in open and informed discussions about content. Ensuring transparency in content selection and maintaining professional standards in libraries and schools will uphold intellectual freedom without resorting to censorship. For these reasons, I strongly urge this subcommittee to reject SF235 and instead work toward policies that defend the right to read, learn, and explore diverse ideas without unnecessary restrictions.

02-22-2025

Brandon Despenas

SF235I am writing to express my strong opposition to SF235, which seeks to exempt public libraries and educational institutions from obscenity laws. While I firmly support intellectual freedom and oppose censorship, this bill could create legal ambiguities that undermine the mission of libraries and schools to provide diverse and educational content.The Importance of Intellectual FreedomPublic libraries and schools serve as vital institutions that provide access to a broad spectrum of ideas and perspectives. Any attempt to regulate content through broad obscenity laws risks imposing undue restrictions on literature, art, and educational materials. It is essential that these institutions remain places of open access to information without the fear of censorship.First Amendment ConsiderationsThe First Amendment protects free speech and ensures that individuals have the right to access information. Courts have long recognized that obscenity laws must be carefully tailored to avoid infringing upon these rights (Miller v. California, 1973). Allowing exemptions for public institutions affirms their role in fostering intellectual inquiry and preventing undue suppression of ideas.The Role of Libraries and SchoolsPublic institutions should not be subjected to undue content restrictions that hinder their ability to provide comprehensive educational materials. Libraries and educators are wellequipped to make responsible content decisions that reflect the educational and literary needs of their communities without external censorship. Attempts to broadly regulate materials under obscenity laws could limit access to important works, our states and nations history, and undermine academic freedoms.A Commitment to Open AccessRather than imposing unnecessary restrictions, we should champion policies that protect access to information while allowing communities to engage in open and informed discussions about content. Ensuring transparency in content selection and maintaining professional standards in libraries and schools will uphold intellectual freedom without resorting to censorship.For these reasons, I strongly urge this subcommittee to reject SF235 and instead work toward policies that defend the right to read, learn, and explore diverse ideas without unnecessary restrictions.

02-22-2025

Jessica Musil

Vote NO. Libraries are one of the few places that people can have free access to any information. If someone doesn't like the information, it is THEIR responsibility to avoid it. It is the PARENT'S responsibility to talk with their children about what is appropriate for them and THEIR values. Government has no business in micromanaging what people seek. Other people should not take away my rights and responsibilities to have open communication with my children about what is accessible in a library. Passing this bill will create adultonly libraries, just like in Idaho. Our children deserve better.

02-22-2025

Renate Bernstein

SF 235 is an unnecessary bill.Obscenity has already been defined by Law with other Tests, and these are all that are needed.As noted, many times over, current state law already requires every school district to have a policy in place to allow materials to be inspected and to provide a process for book concerns and reconsideration. The state of Iowa needs to adhere to this current process. Skipping this required process suggests other motives when they are brought to court.Finally, public libraries have never collected pornography, and never will, so there is no need for this bill

02-22-2025

Libby Slappey

I respectfully ask our legislature to stop wasting time on frivolous bills like these. There are already guardrails in place at public libraries that would keep true pornography out. I would prefer you spend your time working on lowering the cancer rate in our state.

02-22-2025

Jade Hart

I strongly urge you to VOTE NO on SF 235 (and any related bills forthcoming). Library staff are trained to ensure library materials are ageappropriate and of value to their patrons. The average citizen is NOTand SHOULD NOT dictate what our public libraries contain. As a longtime library trustee, parent, and grandparent, I value our Constitutional right to free speech and intellectual freedom enshrined by our public libraries. Censorship has no place in them.

02-22-2025

AMBER REDMOND

I am writing to express my strong opposition to SF235, which seeks to exempt public libraries and educational institutions from obscenity laws. While I firmly support intellectual freedom and oppose censorship, this bill could create legal ambiguities that undermine the mission of libraries and schools to provide diverse and educational content.The Importance of Intellectual FreedomPublic libraries and schools serve as vital institutions that provide access to a broad spectrum of ideas and perspectives. Any attempt to regulate content through broad obscenity laws risks imposing undue restrictions on literature, art, and educational materials. It is essential that these institutions remain places of open access to information without the fear of censorship.First Amendment ConsiderationsThe First Amendment protects free speech and ensures that individuals have the right to access information. Courts have long recognized that obscenity laws must be carefully tailored to avoid infringing upon these rights (Miller v. California, 1973). Allowing exemptions for public institutions affirms their role in fostering intellectual inquiry and preventing undue suppression of ideas.The Role of Libraries and SchoolsPublic institutions should not be subjected to undue content restrictions that hinder their ability to provide comprehensive educational materials. Libraries and educators are wellequipped to make responsible content decisions that reflect the educational and literary needs of their communities without external censorship. Attempts to broadly regulate materials under obscenity laws could limit access to important works, our states and nations history, and undermine academic freedoms.A Commitment to Open AccessRather than imposing unnecessary restrictions, we should champion policies that protect access to information while allowing communities to engage in open and informed discussions about content. Ensuring transparency in content selection and maintaining professional standards in libraries and schools will uphold intellectual freedom without resorting to censorship.For these reasons, I strongly urge this subcommittee to reject SF235 and instead work toward policies that defend the right to read, learn, and explore diverse ideas without unnecessary restrictions.

02-22-2025

Cathy Cooney

I strongly oppose this legislation. Citizens have the rights of free speech, free access to information, and a library free of censorship. Librarians are trained professionals who provide accurate, accessible information to their communities representing multiple points of view. They have been educated and trained to choose the materials for library collections and to evaluate the educational and cultural value of those resources. Without this exemption, libraries could be subjected to repeated meritless lawsuits over any material someone objects to. These neverending lawsuits would essentially freeze a library's work and budget, and ensure that library workers and the library institution aren't able to serve the rest of their community. The bill is also wildly unnecessary, since it's an exemption for educational purposes only, and that exemption wouldn't cover something as extreme as pornography in any case.

02-22-2025

Shawna Riggins

I OPPOSE SF235. This legislation would DEEPLY and negatively impact education in our communities which means it will SHAPE OUR COLLECTIVE FUTURE. SF 235 would restrict what information libraries can provide to the public. This is in direct violation of the foundational principles of libraries. These rights are something to speak up for and defend.

02-22-2025

Leah Ward

I am a new Iowa resident, and I oppose this bill. Libraries are a cultural stronghold of knowledge and community resources. Passing this bill into law would enable anyone to bring a cause of action against their public library simply for carrying a book or other resources that that one person finds offensive. Libraries are already severely underfunded to put libraries in a position of having to finance their legal defense would force libraries across the state to close their doors out of financial necessity. This bill, if passed, would also require a tremendous amount of taxpayer money to finance librarians culling their collections, which would be a painstaking and timeconsuming endeavor. A free society demands free access to information and free exchange of ideas. As an Iowan, I demand that my legislators leave the decision about what material a library offers in the hands of librarians. Do not pass this bill.

02-22-2025

Rachel Evans

Vote NO. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. This could paralyze libraries and the vital services they provide to communities. Secondly this bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship. Leave it up to individuals to choose which materials they'd rather not consume. Please vote no to SF235.

02-22-2025

Annette Dean

I am a resident of Waverly, and have been a library professional for 15 years. SF235 violates the principle of free association and is therefore unconstitutional. Shame on you for even considering a bill that is at its root a violation of one of the most basic freedoms in America. Professional organizations support those professions, by offering continuing education opportunities, networking opportunities, and funding resources. Vote no on SF 235.

02-23-2025

Molly Garrett

Please vote NO on this bill. It is unnecessary for many reasons, as countless others have pointed out in the hundreds of comments opposing it. Free people have the right to read freely. Our libraries and communities should remain places of open access and choice. Reject this bill.

02-23-2025

Megan Klein-Hewett

I am writing in opposition to SF235. This unnecessary bill would only serve to encourage lawsuits over materials that are objectionable to a small number of people, regardless of the literary or artistic merit of said materials. This bill will only restrict free speech and access to information, while threatening libraries in communities who have already been hit with budget cuts with unnecessary legal fees. Iowans cannot thrive in an environment of censorship and restriction of freedoms.

02-23-2025

Jessica Netolicky

I strongly oppose this dangerous bill, which would give the state the power to ban books and educational materials from public libraries and schools. There is already a clear legal standard for obscenity the Miller Test which all public libraries must follow. This bill removes critical legal protections, opening the door for endless, baseless lawsuits from individuals who object to materials for personal reasons, regardless of their educational value. The current exemption is not a loophole; it ensures that libraries can provide materials for educational purposes without fear of harassment. If a library were distributing actual pornography, it would not be exempt under existing law. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to censor ideas and restrict access to knowledge, and I stand firmly against it. Public librairies serve the whole PUBLIC. As a library patron and parent, I make the decisions on what materials to access for myself and my family. No one else should be making that decision for me. Keep it that way.

02-23-2025

Theresa Pagliai

Vote No on SF 235! Iowa has an obscenity law that all library's abide by. I challenge you to look at a random selection of collection policies from libraries across the state and find one the is not in compliance with 728.1. This legislation was NOT developed to solve a problem, it is being driven by a small group of people who feel their beliefs are more important than their neighbors. Vote NO!

02-23-2025

Keri Weston Stoll

Vote no on this bill. The main supporters of this bill that I am aware of want to prevent minors from having access to pornography. That is a law that already exists, which makes this bill at best a waste of time. The worst case that makes this bill do dangerous is the vague and subjective definition of the word obscene. What is to stop other bills being proposed that define obscene as anything any random person disagrees with. Public libraries are meant to have as wide s range of materials as possible, the vague wording of this proposal is intimidating and insulting. Librarians are not giving children pornography, and all materials in libraries should be available for individuals and individual families to make their own educated decisions about what is right for themselves.

02-23-2025

Joa LaVille

This bill is unnecessary and aims to "solve a problem" that doesn't exist. Parents have always been encouraged to decide for their own families (and not for other people's families) what is "appropriate" or not. As a youth services librarian at a public library, I regularly help parents access tools (like Common Sense media, etc.) to help them make choices about what may be right or not a good fit within the values of their own families. This bill creates an incentive for frivolous lawsuits, which will be an enormous waste of taxpayer money. The implication that any Iowa library is providing or trying to provide pornographic materials to minors (or anyone) is simply a falsehood. If you are truly concerned about protecting youth from harm, please turn your attention to real issues being faced by youth in our state like poverty, lack of access to mental health care, and violence.

02-23-2025

Jessica Young

Vote NO on this bill. I want the right to access materials freely at my local library. I want to make the choice for myself whether I feel something is obscene. If a particular book is not something I want to read for whatever reason I will leave it on the shelf and not check it out. I do not want the government or other random community members deciding for me what I can and cannot access. Vote NO.

02-23-2025

Mara Egherman

Please vote NO. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.This bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship.

02-23-2025

Stacy Volmer

As a parent, I strongly oppose SF 235 and the repeal of Code Section 728.7, which protects public libraries and schools from censorship. This repeal is an unconstitutional attack on free speech, an assault on education, and a threat to our childrens future.It Violates the ConstitutionThe First Amendment guarantees the right to access information and prohibits government censorship. This repeal would give politicians the power to ban books based on personal beliefs, not educational merit. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that restricting access to books in public institutions violates the Constitution (Board of Education v. Pico, 1982). This bill would invite legal battles, waste taxpayer money, and be struck down as unconstitutional.It Hurts Kids and EducationThis repeal allows vague claims of obscenity to justify book bans, depriving children of literature that fosters critical thinking, empathy, and problemsolving skills.Students lose access to diverse stories, limiting their understanding of society and their identities.Censorship creates a climate of fear, preventing teachers and librarians from doing their jobs.Children are denied resources to navigate reallife challenges, from bullying to mental health.It Undermines Parental RightsThis repeal removes decisionmaking from parents and educators, handing it to politicians. Parents already control what their children readthis law would impose one groups beliefs on everyone.Vote NO on SF 235This repeal is government overreach, an attack on free speech, and a danger to our childrens education. I urge you to protect access to knowledge by rejecting this harmful bill.

02-23-2025

Erica Eis

Please vote no on SF 235. Librarians and library workers have always followed the ethics of their profession by providing access to materials and allowing patrons and parents to decide what is best for them and their families. Libraries already have procedures in place for library patrons to voice concerns about library materials without threatening individual library workers, which is crucial in order to ensure librarians can continue to provide access to materials for all community members across many beliefs and walks of life. Protect patrons and parents right to read and access to materials by voting no on SF 235.

02-23-2025

John Stoll

Vote no on this bill. The group that supports this bill doesnt understand what obscene is without defining it. There are already laws against pornography. To pass a law like this, you will also be categorizing the Holy Bible and biology texts books as obscene. Who defines what obscene context is. Just because one person thinks something is obscene, the person standing next to them may not. All books need to be available to everyone to read. If theres a book you dont like, then dont read it, another person might have a life improving experience by reading that book. It really all comes down to parents. Growing up, my parents knew every book, TV show, movie and video game that was in my life. If there was something about one of them that they didnt want to expose me to, then they could control that. Its not up to the government to pick what content is available to the public, as that violates the rights of every American to freedom of speech and press. Libraries are just a neutral place where everyone from all walks of life can go to choose what knowledge they want to use for themselves. It is wrong to hold a library or librarian responsible for someone accessing knowledge that someone else wants to restrict for their on selfish reasons. If a few start to restrict what they think is obscene, where does it stop. There are some things in the Holy Bible that would make some of you very uncomfortable. I find the sport of wrestling obscene, are you going to ban that next or penalize schools and coaches for having that as a sport in the school system. Libraries contain books that have real documentation of the history of things like this happening in the past in other countries throughout history, and some of it not happening that long ago. Maybe those that support this bill should go to their local library and check out some of those history books to read up on how things like this law happened in the past and lead to some of the darkest times in our worlds history.

02-23-2025

Merideth Willett

I oppose this bill and urge you to vote NO. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. Legal fees from multiple lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget. Libraries already have policies in place to express concern about materials. Parents should be the ones deciding what their children read, not other citizens and not the government. This bill restricts free speech and access to information.

02-23-2025

Victoria Aden

I urge you to vote no on advancing this bill. This is completely unnecessary. Libraries are not providing obscene material. Some people are seeking to remove books they dislike so no one can access them. To say this is not about banning access to books is dishonest. If you do not like a book, don't read it. Please stop with all this hateful legislation designed to impose your religious views on everyone else.

02-23-2025

Charity Tyler

This is an attempt to censor materials that you dont like. Intellectual Freedom means that you can read things I don't like and I or my children can read things you dont like. Stop being a bully. Libraries are held to a legal standard that prevents pornography from being made available. Stop legislating your beliefs and start focusing on education, mental health, and other issues that impact quality of life for Iowans.

02-23-2025

Kellen Kraber

Please appose SF235. There is already a legal definition for obscenity that all public libraries must follow. Enacting such legislation stifles the control of local library boards who have a more intimate knowledge of the community they serve. Also, subjecting libraries to frivolous lawsuits would threaten their closure taking away a valuable resource from the communities they serve.

02-23-2025

Amy Kraber

I oppose SF235. Our libraries already adhere to legal definitions of obscenity. They also cater to all ages, making materials available to people of all ages, faiths, cultures. Our libraries provide so many services to our community, and we need them. I am concerned that passing this bill will allow bad actors to target libraries and hurt communities. I am so grateful that I can go to the library with my preschooler and my two teenagers and we will all be able to find something to read while connecting with each other and our community. Please do not put any unnecessary burdens on our libraries.

02-23-2025

Sheila Schofer

I strongly oppose SF 235. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous and costly lawsuits. Libraries dont collect obscene materials, and communities have ways to challenge books when they have concerns. This is about restricting access to materials a few disagree with and limits citizens rights to free speech and access to information.

02-23-2025

Jennifer Delperdang

Please do not pass this bill. The freedom to read is a right that Iowans for GENERATIONS have had. Iowans do not need the protection of the State regarding what they choose to read. Please focus your time and efforts on improving the lives of Iowansnot trying to undermine one of the most TRUSTED institutions in our statethe PUBLIC library.

02-23-2025

Leslie Noble

This bill is unnecessary. The exemption in current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning that the only time a library could claim the exemption is for educational purposes. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship.

02-23-2025

Stacy Lewis

HF284 & SF238Public libraries are vital institutions that serve as cornerstones of democracy, education, and equal access to information. Defunding them would not only be detrimental to communities but could also raise serious constitutional concerns.First Amendment ConcernsThe First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to access information, which is fundamental to free speech and expression. Public libraries provide critical access to books, digital resources, and public records, ensuring that all citizensregardless of economic statushave the ability to educate themselves and engage in informed discourse. The Supreme Court has recognized this principle in Board of Education v. Pico (1982), where it ruled that removing access to information in libraries based on ideological reasoning can infringe upon constitutional rights. A significant reduction in funding that limits access to these resources would set a dangerous precedent, restricting the free flow of information.Fourteenth Amendment ConcernsPublic libraries serve as equalizers, ensuring that every individualregardless of socioeconomic statushas access to knowledge, jobseeking tools, and legal resources. Defunding libraries would disproportionately harm lowerincome and rural communities, where these institutions serve as primary access points for education and technology. Under the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause, policies that disproportionately affect marginalized groups can face legal scrutiny. Furthermore, the Due Process Clause protects citizens from the unjust removal of public benefits, such as library services, without legitimate justification.The Broader Impact on CommunitiesBeyond constitutional concerns, public libraries provide essential services, including literacy programs, internet access, workforce development assistance, and community meeting spaces. These services are irreplaceable and cannot be replicated through private or online alternatives alone. Weakening our library system will have longterm consequences, including lower literacy rates, increased barriers to employment, and a less informed citizenry.I urge this subcommittee to recognize the profound impact that defunding public libraries would have on our state and its residents. Rather than diminishing these invaluable institutions, we should be investing in them to ensure that future generations continue to benefit from free and equal access to knowledge. I strongly urge you to reject HF284 & SF238, and to advocate for continued library funding.

02-23-2025

Kathy Parsons

First, thank you for your service to the citizens of Iowa. I bet this is the first time you have read this. I strongly believe this bill is not needed so vote no. The exemption in the current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning that the only time a library could claim the exemption for educational purposes. The materials libraries provide to their clientele all have educational value. I do not assert my values onto those who have differing views and nor do I not want to do that. And in turn others should not be forcing their values on me. This is the beauty of this state and country...a place where different people with different views can live together in respect and trust. Thank you for your time and consideration.

02-23-2025

Rebekah Hosford

Vote No! This bill is a terrifying threat to libraries.This is not a bill that will keep children "safe". It's a violation of our First Amendment rights. It's also taking power away from parents and their right to decide what their child can read. If you don't like a book, don't pick it up. Also, libraries are not putting out books geared toward adults in the children's section. Librarians went to school to learn about children's development and which books are most relevant/geared toward different ages. Does that mean their are books about puberty in children nonfiction sections? Yes! Because periods can start as young as eight years old. These books become valuable tools for parents to teach their children about their bodies. They have educational value. Are those books on display for toddlers? No! That's silly. Do libraries have books about different sorts of familiesfoster families, children of adoption, divorced parents, children living with their grandparents, military families,families from different cultures,children with step parents,children with two moms or two dads? Yes! Because our world is diverse! Diversity is not obscenenot in the popular definition of the word nor the legal definition. And, yet, it is the diverse books,the LGBTQ books, the books the critique society, the books that teach history and social justice and equalityit is those books that are the ones that are challenged and banned. All this bill will do is cost the tax payer money in possible litigation costs and take away valuable resources and experiences from communities. Bottom Line: When parents voluntarily go into the library, let them decide what books are best for their child. Don't let others infringe on that right.

02-23-2025

Tom Snee

I am writing in opposition to SF235. There is simply no reason for this law. If those who object to a book or information being available in a library dont want to read it, they dont have to read it. Attempting to ban objectionable books is little more than an attempt to control others and deprive them of their freedom of choice. In addition, this law would place immense and unnecessary pressure on Iowas librarians, who offer an invaluable service providing information to others. They should not have to worry that providing information will get them in trouble with the law.

02-23-2025

Maggie Johnson

I strongly disagree with SF 235 and urge my representatives to vote NO! As stated by another citizen: Librarians are educated and trained to curate a collection of materials available to the public. Their choice of diverse books represents the beautiful and diverse world we live in! Diversity is not obscene, and yet it is these diverse perspectives this bill aims to remove from our libraries. I love my library and use it regularly. Vote NO.

02-23-2025

Benjamin Larson [Nebraska Cardiac Care]

I demand a vote no. Claiming that you know what is good for us to see and being able to brand things as "obscenities" is the work of despots what else is obscene? I imagine some would think Anne Frank's diary or "The Grapes of Wrath" could easily be added to their tally. Would a nursing or Emergency medicine textbook be "obscene" because they mention gay people? This "bill" is a joke.

02-23-2025

Diana Boeglin

Please vote NO on SF235. Book bans are antithetical to freedom. This does nothing to help Iowans. Our lakes are too polluted for swimming, bird flu is ravaging our farm communities and economy, we have one of the highest rates of cancer in the country, and THIS is what you focus on? What a waste of time and energy.

02-23-2025

Natasha Fuson

Please vote NO! Public schools and libraries provide a wide array of material without regard to personal opinion on the material offered. Iowa already has an obscenity law on the books that libraries adhere to. Look for yourselves. Pick some libraries from across the state and review their collection policies. There is no need for this legislation! The idea that teachers and librarians are in the business of harming children is ridiculous and this opens the door for them to be sued. Do not legislate based on a small group of people who want to push their worldview on everyone else.

02-23-2025

Rebekah Jacobs

Please vote OPPOSED to SF235. Libraries are meant to be a place where we have freedom of information. Intellectual freedom is just as important as protecting our children. These diverse materials allow us to grow as a state, to improve upon ourselves. Censorship limits opportunities for people to interact with nuance and limits our ability to grapple with complex topics and ideas. This bill undermines the purpose of a library.

02-23-2025

Jackie Cordon

Please vote no on this bill. Libraries must be places of free expression and a place where parents of different views can make their own choices for their own kids. We cannot impose the ideas of a few on what is available in a whole library system. Thats not liberty for all

02-23-2025

Kaya Young

This bill cannot be allowed to pass because censorship within public libraries is extremely harmful to both communities and libraries across Iowa. Deciding what information the public can and cannot access is dangerous. This type of censorship can lead to the elimination of diverse voices and the rewriting of history to ignore blatant injustices. The censorship would make it near impossible for librarians to help kids without fear of legal repercussions, so this bill effectively takes educational opportunities away from kids. I strongly urge you to vote against this bill and protect the integrity of Iowas libraries and their communities.

02-23-2025

Katy Hardy

Please vote Opposed to SF235. Freedom of information should be protected, made available, and accessible for everyone. This information should not be censored. Public libraries provide a safe space for everyone to enjoy and take advantage of that information to grow. That growth is vital for the State of Iowa and its citizens to thrive.

02-23-2025

Bonita Moore

Why would you think it is needed to censor books. The library system are to be for the public. As a parent I monitored what my child was allowed to read. The librarians are knowledgeable on the books in their libraries. Let them do there job and help people decide what they want to read. Banning Books is not for you decide. You work for the public, so do your job and listen to us and leave the decision to the people!!!

02-23-2025

Amber Carlson

VOTE NO on SF 235! This bill is unnecessary, redundant, and would be harmful to Iowa's communities. My young children deserve a public library in their community that celebrates their freedoms and is supported by their government representatives.

02-23-2025

Ashley Burns

Please vote NO on SF235. This legislation violates our constitutional rights. This bill is creating problems where there are none. The consequences of dangerous legislation & propaganda like this been proven over & over again in history that censorship is NEVER the answer. The State needs to stay out of this matter & allow our professionals & parents to make these decisions. Stay out of Library business & let them serve their communities without interruption.

02-24-2025

Olivia Hickcox

I strongly oppose this bill. Libraries are meant to have materials for the diverse communities they serve, not certain morals or viewpoints. This bill would waste library funding and limit services they are able to provide. As a mother, I am able to choose what materials I think are appropriate for my children and myself. Vote NO on this bill.

02-24-2025

Alanna Reeves

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Senate File 235, which proposes the repeal of Iowa Code section 728.7. This section provides necessary exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions, protecting them from frivolous legal challenges while ensuring that educational materials remain accessible.This bill is not only unnecessaryit is harmful. Iowa libraries and schools already comply with existing obscenity laws, ensuring that inappropriate materials are not made available to minors. SF 235 does nothing to improve protections for children, but it does expose libraries and educators to costly, unwarranted lawsuits in an already suehappy society, forcing libraries to divert already limited resources toward legal defense and increased insurance limits instead of educational programs. The fear of potential legal repercussions may discourage educators and librarians from including diverse content, thereby limiting exposure to a broad spectrum of ideas and perspectives that are necessary in a free and open democracy. In todays suehappy culture, where lawsuits are often weaponized to push political agendas or line the pockets of lawyers, the risk of libraries facing expensive legal battles for simply doing their jobs is real and unacceptable, particularly when taxpayers will bear the burden of these expenses. Libraries and educational institutions exist to provide knowledge, not to serve as battlegrounds for ideological and legal attacks. The current exemptions in Iowa Code section 728.7 strike a fair balance, allowing professionals to make informed decisions while complying with existing obscenity laws. SF 235 does not enhance protections; it merely increases the potential for abuse, wasteful litigation, and undue censorship.OPPOSE SF 235

02-24-2025

Laura Sherwin

Vote NO on this extremist fringe group Moms for Liberty sponsored bill.Censoring Iowans is never a positive action.Iowans love their public libraries, and we will remember who supported this unnecessary bill and vote them out accordingly.

02-24-2025

Kayla Hesseltine

Con vote No. This is an infringement on my first amendment right. I have the freedom and right to read any materials I choose. If you ban books youre limiting my free will and my pursuit of happiness. It is illegal to ban books based on ideological or political beliefs or views. I implore you to stand up and do the right thing. Vote NO! Your constituent.

02-24-2025

Sarah Tebbe

Vote no on SF 235. This constitutes censorship. We vociferously object to censorship in any form, especially when it comes to our public libraries. The People are speaking out. NO CENSORSHIP of public libraries and educational institutions.

02-24-2025

Jan Clarke

I strongly oppose this bill and urge you to vote NO. There is no place for censorship in our libraries. People deserve access to all books, and adults can decide what to read without interference from the government. This is overreach and censorship. It is wrong.

02-24-2025

Stella Herzig

Please vote no on SF 235.It sounds like a communist countrys law!!Also,The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. The legal fees from multiple lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget and potentially forcing cities to decide they can no longer support having a library due to the liability. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.This bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. This bill is so UnAmerican!!! Why are you stripping Iowans of their freedoms? Wow.Thank you for voting no and thus upholding our American values.

02-24-2025

Carl Herzig [St. Ambrose University]

Please vote no on SF235The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library, even repeatedly, over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit of their objections. The legal fees from multiple lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget and potentially forcing cities to decide they can no longer support having a library due to the liability. This bill is unnecessary; obscenity has already been defined by law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. This bill restricts free speech and access to information and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship. The exemption in current law is not a blanket exemption. It covers only educational purposes, meaning that the only time a library could claim the exemption is for educational purposes. If a library were distributing pornographic material, it would not be exempt.

02-24-2025

Susanne Leibold [Clarke University]

VOTE NO! This bill is not necessary. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit.Any titles in a public library would stand up in court (they would pass the Miller test), but the potential suits are the issue. This law could bankrupt many small communities fighting this legislation. It is really pretty simple, if you do not like a book, you do not need to read it. This bill also restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value.I am wondering what non existent problem this bill is trying to address exactly. Any kid who has a cell phone has access to far more "obscenity". At least materials in the library provide background and context to an issue and can often provide a balanced view on social issues.

02-24-2025

Gail Marincovich

I work at our local library and I can state without reservations that this bill is both ridiculous and unnecessary. The current obsenity code is perfectly written and consistently enforced. This new proposal would create utter chaos for libraries everywhere. It opens the door to ban beloved classics, informational books, and honestly, even the Bible. The definition of obsenity has already been clearly defined and libraries consistently comply. This new bill would erase the boundaries and leave a gigantic gray area open to even the tiniest protest. The result would be the demise of libraries who could no longer afford to remain open, and the domino effect on communities everywhere would be disastrous. There must be a vehement no to this bill.

02-24-2025

Corey Creekmur

Please vote NO on this bill. Under the false premise of "protecting children" from explicit pornography a situation that does not exist in public or school libraries but has been invented to generate outrage this bill would allow for a wide range of censorship and even punishment for librarians who carefully and responsibly serve their publics. As we have seen elsewhere, this bill would allow the censorship of many books, many considered classics and longstanding classroom favorites. (The absurdity of this situation is demonstrated by the use of such laws to ban works such as Anne Frank's diary and the Bible, among many others.) Moreover, it denies the freedom of individuals or parents to judge for their children what is acceptable or ageappropriate reading: it insults the ability of trained teachers and librarians to guide readers, making the state responsible for such decisions and for punishing those who are deemed to violate what will be constantly changing and arbitrary standards. As we have also seen elsewhere, these laws especially encourage attacks on LGBTQ and African American writers, whose books have often been targeted for their titles alone. As many have noted, censorship of this sort never looks good in retrospect: we must learn that it's a common sign of the steady erosion of additional fundamental rights. I urge you not to put Iowa on that downward path.

02-24-2025

Amy Muchmore

I strongly disagree with SF 235 and urge my representatives to vote NO! Librarians are educated and trained to curate a collection of materials available to the public. Their choice of diverse books represents the beautiful and diverse world we live in! Diversity is not obscene, and yet it is these diverse perspectives this bill aims to remove from our libraries. A small group of people should not be given the power to decided what is best for the majority. If someone doesn't agree with a book, or a program simply don't read the book, or don't attend the program. Parents should be encouraged to attend the library with their children and they can decide what is appropriate for THEIR family, not for ALL families.

02-24-2025

Vicki Crannell [Friends of the Mary J Barnett Library]

Vote NO!!!! Librarians and educators can and will defend their books and materials, but removing the exemption provided by Iowa Code 728 exposes these professionals to legal and financial risks and wastes taxpayer money, of which there is already a shortage. There are already functional policies and procedures that allow the public to challenge and submit materials for reconsideration. Concerns over materials used in instruction should be addressed at the local level, not by sweeping legislation. Instead of allowing these issues to be handled locally, the state is attempting to strip Iowans of their First Amendment rights and the right to a library free from censorship. Furthermore, public libraries are voluntary institutions. No one is forced to come into the library. No one is required to read every book in the library. No one has to finish a book that they aren't enjoying or don't agree with it. I believe in the freedom to read. Do not pass Senate File 235.

02-24-2025

Vicki Crannell [Friends of the Mary J Barnett Library]

02-24-2025

Samantha Ferm [Ferm]

I never in my life thought I would have to remind our politicians about our rights as citizens but FREE SPEECH is vital to this country. That includes public libraries. Public libraries are made for THE PUBLIC, and not for anyone's interpretation of what's 'moral' or 'obscene.' libraries for generations have already had guidance and rules in place to provide material in a thoughtful manner. do not infringe upon our rights as citizens, you literally do not have the authority to do that when the constitution says otherwise. if you're wanting to waste even more taxpayer money with the frivolous law suits that will accompany this, you need to be voted out of your seat as a representative of the people.

02-24-2025

Kristin Dietzel

This bill comes after Iowans First Amendment rights and opens the door to further censorship and legal liability for educators and library professionals. Obscenity is already defined by law and must be determined by the courts. This bill is an utter waste of time and distraction when there are urgent educational issues at stake in Iowa. Lawmakers and their families are free to have their own beliefs and parental values, but don't come after mine.

02-24-2025

Amanda Brewer [Harlan Community Library]

Vote NO! Stop trying to censor public libraries. Libraries do not contain pornographic material and there are already measures in place to deal with this issue through the courts. You are setting up cities and libraries for financial disasters. Libraries are no place for politics.

02-24-2025

Tyler Magee

Vote NO on this bill. It is unnecessary as the 'Miller Test" already exists and is used by librarians. There are also policies already in place to allow the public to request for items to be removed from library collections.

02-24-2025

Cary Siegfried

Please vote NO on this file. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. Libraries do NOT hold materials that meet the legal test of obscenity; however there seems to be a belief held by many that just because something may be offensive to one's personal beliefs or tastes that it must be obscene. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. The legal fees from multiple frivolous lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget and potentially forcing cities to decide they can no longer support having a library due to the liability.

02-24-2025

Jonathan Banse

This bill is a direct attack on our first amendment rights. Libraries are already subject to obscenity laws as defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. This law is a direct attack on American's right to freedom of speech and their right to a library free of censorship. The laws already only protect libraries in the case of education, libraries would not be protected in the case of distributing pornography or pornographic materials. To pass this law would directly undermine the freedom and liberties of Iowans.

02-24-2025

Nick Rossman

This bill does not protect or reinforce the 1st amendment right to live and work according to beliefs without fear of punishment by the government. It does not promote parental involvement, provide greater local control, doesn't cut regulations, nor does it protect free speech. Please leave this bill in the subcommittee wastebin.

02-24-2025

Melanie Rainbow-Harel

Libraries are beloved places by people across all groups in a community. The beauty of the library is how we are all free to select the materials we are interested in and leave the rest for others to pursue. We all deserve to access any and all library materials that we are interested in, regardless of whether they contain words that others may find obscene.

02-24-2025

Kerry Vande Kieft

Please vote no on this bill. The exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If it were removed, anyone could sue a library repeatedly over materials, regardless of the merit. It is also unnecessary because obscenity has already defined by law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship.

02-24-2025

Robyn Groff

Please vote NO on this bill. It is completely unnecessary as there are already obscenity rules for libraries that work just fine. It's also unconstitutional....and will cost time and money to defend all the lawsuits brought. Why not focus on something that's a critical problem in this state? How about our disgusting, unhealthy, polluted water? And the absolutely connected high cancer rate? You are elected to serve the people of Iowa, not infringe on our rights. The pearlclutching folks in Pella can choose not to take their children to public libraries if that's what they want, although I feel very sorry for those kids. Those people don't get to decide what everyone else reads.

02-24-2025

Samantha Yeager-Walrath

Please vote NO on SF 235. This bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. It is not the job of the state or the library to make the choice on what materials to read for an individual.

02-24-2025

Abbey Strum

The lack of foresight is oblivious by can of worms you are opening. I'm assuming that the purpose of this bill is to "other" anyone other than straight white christians. The point of libraries and schools are that they are for everyone not just a narrow group of people. The way we move forward in our society is through being empathic and being open to learning from outside information other then what we know. The fact that this bill is trying to suppress education other then what republicans deem appropriate is grossly offensive and is going to backfire on them. There are many "christian teaching" that will fall under this and there are people that are educated that will make sure this is enforced on both sides. This is nothing more then and uneducated power grab that you are shoving through so people with accept the "lesser of two evils" again will backfire.

02-24-2025

Ashley Osborn

Vote NO on SF 235! Most citizens do not want this bill passed. There are existing obscenity laws and processes for those who subjectively think something is "inappropriate, so follow those laws! Don't take the freedom of choice away from everyone else.

02-24-2025

Katie Giorgio

Please vote NO on this measure. Public libraries are a place where every individual Iowan should be allowed to select the materials they wish to read/listen to/etc. without having that legislated by what other people think. Censorship does not belong in our public libraries. Iowans deserve to have access to all materials. Public libraries are critically important parts of our communities and our state as a whole. Please consider voting no so that we can protect these institutions that help create wellrounded citizens of all walks of life.

02-24-2025

Melita Tunnicliff

This bill would make the existence of public libraries impossible. The purpose of this bill is stated as "A public librarian shall not knowingly provide obscene material to a minor in a library." However, in my opinion as a library director in a small town, without the exemption currently provided in Iowa Code section 728.7, it would be very difficult to select new materials without reading each of the books in its entirety, and impossible to go through our entire adult and juvenile collections of 23,868 fiction and nonfiction books, DVDs and CDs, to make sure none of them contain a depiction or description which may be offensive to even one person. Anyone could file an objection to a book that possibly would not hold up in Court, but a few frivolous lawsuits could paralylze a library and lead their city or county to pull their support to avoid the costs. Our library does have children's and adult materials in different sections, but I cannot think of a way to divide our small building to restrict minors to only one section of the library. We make clear in our policies that the library does not act "in loco parentis" but relies on parents and guardians to determine their child's use of the library and library materials. I trust Iowans to parent their children.

02-24-2025

Diane McFadden

VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO!!!! This bill is an insult to librarians. There is already a procedure in place for people who want to challenge material. This bill would circumvent the procedures in place. This is the United States, freedom is important. Don't take a library's ability to provide material to all away, to fight legal battles that don't need be be brought about. Taking public tax $$ to fight legal battles is absurd. VOTE NO!!!!!

02-24-2025

CARRIE BECKER [New Hampton Public Library]

Please vote no. Free speech must be protected. Not speech that you like. When researching The List of books to be removed, dubbed obscene, are in fact about RACE. Not sex, race. The Ruby Bridges Story removed. There is nothing obscene in this book. Republicans are using obscene to cover things that are not obscene.

02-24-2025

Mary Wilcynski

Senate file 235 is not only unnecessary, its a huge overreach.How about we work on some meaningful legislation like cancer research, water quality, financial support for PUBLIC schools, mental health initiatives, protecting under represented and under served.Deciding to take on public libraries seems like a bird walk to avoid issues actually threatening Iowans.

02-24-2025

Jessie Devereaux

Vote no. Libraries provide worlds and experiences outside of each person narrow window. Books create empathy in people. Allowing a small group of people to determine what that world is, is the opposite of what libraries stand for.

02-24-2025

Heather Hansen

Make no mistake, this is absolutely a book ban. It doesn't matter if you lie and say it isn't, and that you are only trying to "protecting children." Removing books is a book ban. It is censorship. This is about the government controlling what children read and removing books from a library. Why would these decisions not be up to a child's caregiver and not the government? There is no place for this bill in Iowa or the United States. This does not represent us and we are asking you to vote against censorship.

02-24-2025

Astrid Bennett

I vehementlyobject to SF 235, revocation of Library Protections. Please vote NO.Bill like these discourage anyone from ever wanting to move here to work or create work opportunities. This runs contrary to what legislators decided was a priority. Iowa already has a very negative reputation elsewhere in the country as the state that installed books bans for K6 grades in school. Now legislatorswant to extend this to high school and in general libraries. Please leave our libraries and librarians ALONE! They are important places to learn about and establish our freedom of speech.

02-24-2025

Laurence Fuortes

Censoring libraries is ridiculous. Republicans campaign on small government, freedom of speech and individual freedoms and then try to censor books!Absurd. Freedom of speech includes freedom of press and access to same.

02-24-2025

Barb Phillips

I urge you to oppose SF 235, which takes decisionmaking power awayfrom parents and local communities and gives it to governmentregulators. Parentsnot the stateshould decide what their childrenread, and local library boards should continue making these decisions,not politicians in Des Moines.This bill sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship.Who decides what is "obscene"? Today, it may be one booktomorrow, itcould be religious texts, historical accounts, or classic literature.We should not give bureaucrats the power to ban books based on vague,subjective standards.Conservative values have always championed parental rights, limitedgovernment, and local controlSF 235 goes against all three. I urgeyou to vote NO to keep these decisions where they belong: withfamilies and local communities.

02-24-2025

Emily Christensen

Vote NO on SF 235. Support free speech! Let parents make the decision what is right for their child to read. Respect Iowans enough that we can make these decisions for ourselves. Do not support censorship! Protect libraries from frivolous lawsuits. Librarians care about their communities. They dedicate their time to provide the best collections for their patrons. Respect librarians who care deeply for those they serve. This bill is unnecessary and allows the state to ban books. It restricts access to information. Libraries are vital resources in our Iowa towns and cities. This bill will harm libraries, and Iowans, and our freedoms.

02-24-2025

Jamie Byerly

This bill is disgusting. It restricts free speech which is the First Amendment. It also restricts access to information. Just because you believe that certain books are not appropriate does not mean that you have the right to take those books away from everyone. The main argument in this is about protecting children. If you actually wanted to protect children, then you would encourage parents to make the decisions for their children about what they allow their own children to read. Censoring books and trying to put in bills that damage libraries is not the way to go. These kinds of bills will impact communities.You could end up having communities close their libraries because they no longer can staff them nor handle the amount of lawsuits that could come if the public library exemption is done away with. You would be directly impacting communities where the public library may be the only place that a senior citizen can access the internet, a child can check out books to read, and people can gather together. These libraries are the lifeblood of their communities, and you will have made it to where they cannot exist due to every time that someone is unhappy about a book or program can just sue. This will cripple city budgets and decimate libraries in small towns. All of this because you don't like a book. Just don't read it. If you feel that a book is not age appropriate, then don't have your child read it. But please do not make the decision for other families. They can make their own decisions regarding their children.

02-24-2025

Rachel Yoder

I am strongly against this bill and am asking you, as the representatives of the voices of Iowa, to vote against it. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.

02-24-2025

Sharon Moss

Instead of promoting literacy and learning, the state government appears to support letting a limited amount of individuals decide what the taxpayers can or can't have access to in their local communities storytime, teen hangouts, senior hour, craft groups, training for job seekers. With the extremely high cancer rates, hungry children, lack of public outdoor recreation, they're doing their utmost to drive people out of the state.

02-24-2025

Brittany Brewer

Please vote NO on HF235. While I am all for protecting the innocence of children I strongly feel that that is a parents role. Please do not remove free speech from the thousands of Iowans who enjoy the freedom their public libraries bring to them.

02-24-2025

Samantha Thompson

This bill is an attack on our public libraries, a vital service that thousands of Iowans use on a regular basis. If parents object to their children seeing certain content within a public library, they are well within their rights to prevent their children from checking out that content or visiting the library itself. However, the current law which allows the use of appropriate material for educational purposes in any accredited school, or any public library, or in any educational program is more than sufficient to protect children. Repealing this legislation would only serve to expose libraries to lawsuits and attacks from fringe religious groups, impeding their ability to offer quality information and service to their communities. This bill is a disgrace. Vote NO.

02-24-2025

Amy Nonhof

Vote NO for this bill. This bill would be extremely harmful to libraries and their communities as it opens up the opportunity for frivolous law suits from those that have a beef about anything and everything. The fines that could be given would be very detrimental to communities and could close many libraries. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.

02-24-2025

Katy Philby

Vote NO on SF 235. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test. We don't need to define it again. The library is a place for all people and does not censor materials. Parents need to speak with their children and have conversations with them if they don't like what they are reading. If you don't like it, don't read it. Everybody is at different maturity levels and you can't just blanket censor. Our nation is founded on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. This bill would restrict our right to free speech and access to information. Please vote no.

02-24-2025

Jeffrey Ketcham

Censorship in libraries is a dangerous and insidious practice that undermines the very foundation of intellectual freedom. By removing books and other materials from library shelves, censors seek to limit access to information and ideas, thereby stifling critical thinking and informed decisionmaking. Libraries are essential institutions in a democratic society, serving as repositories of knowledge and platforms for diverse perspectives. Protecting them from censorship is not merely a matter of defending books; it is a defense of our fundamental rights to learn, question, and engage with the world around us. Please do not let this bill pass.

02-24-2025

Rebecca Kamm

Please stop targeting public libraries. This proposed bill is ridiculous and takes away protection of our valued libraries. This bill would allow any kook to protest a book, movies, etc., he does not like. Our libraries help the community in so many ways: programs for kids and adults in person and online, easy and free access to a variety of materials, etc. Libraries need your support not assaults. Please kill this bill.

02-24-2025

Sarah Shatzer

Please do not allow this bill to pass. No one should be allowed to sue a public library just because they find something they deem to be obscene in a library material. The person could simply tell library staff that they object to the material. Perhaps the library could ask members to vote on whether the material should be removed. Lets handle objections in a reasonable manner. Lawsuits are expensive and needless in this case.

02-24-2025

Jim MartinSchramm

SF 235 would remove the educational exemption clause for public libraries from Iowas obscenity code. SF 235 would allow anyone to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. This current exemption does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields them from frivolous lawsuits. This would remove that protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees. I urge you to oppose SF 235.

02-24-2025

Amy Stevenson

Vote NO on SF 235. This bill aims to restrict free speech and access to information. The books in your local libraries meet selection criteria. Limited budgets are stretched to create a collection that meets the needs of the community. Not every book is for every reader, but subcommittee members have created a false narrative that young visitors are being weighed down with obscene materials when visiting the library. This bill aims to strip Iowa citizens of their right to a library free of censorship. Iowa's kids don't need to be saved from books. They do need to be protected from censorship.

02-24-2025

Jackie Jordan [Marengo Public LIbrary]

Vote NO SF 235Public libraries and educational institutions are vital in providing access to diverse information and fostering intellectual growth. Its crucial that we uphold protections for these institutions, especially regarding obscenity exemptions. These exemptions ensure that libraries and schools can offer a wide range of resources, including materials that may not always align with every individuals personal views, but which are essential for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. Stripping these protections threatens the ability of libraries and educational systems to serve their primary role: fostering critical thinking, promoting intellectual diversity, and ensuring that all individuals can access information freely. Preserving these exemptions is fundamental to maintaining a free and open society where knowledge is not censored, and where libraries can continue to be safe spaces for all to learn and grow. Lets stand up for the importance of intellectual freedom and defend these exemptions.

02-24-2025

Carol Gilbertson

I urge you to defeat this billit would cause libraries to deaquisition books the public should be given the opportunity to read, and would mean the library could no longer subscribe to all magazines and newspapers, since they simply would not be capable of examining every page of every issue to be sure there was nothing questionable in them.

02-24-2025

Lisa Petrie

I am OPPOSED to this bill. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to allow one person the right to force the removal of a book, regardless of its merit. There's already a process in place that gives community members the right to challenge materials the process of reconsideration. It is a good process, and serves to reflect the values of the community; not the values of one person. No one individual should be given the power to force a public library to defend a book in court. I am embarrassed that my state would put forward such antiintellectual legislation. Vote no.

02-24-2025

Daniel Bussey

I strongly disagree with SF 235 as an intrusion into how a public library conducts itself. This bill is extremely burdensome and unnecessary and completely unwarranted. Libraries do a wonderful job of picking appropriate materials and should not be subject to the whims of someone who disagrees with insignificant petty grievances of what they feel are not for his or her eyes to see. Some books do contain adult content and not obscene. Leave libraries alone.

02-24-2025

E Schechinger

Vote NO on this bill. There are already procedures in place to address obscenity. I would rather my tax dollars go to paying for books than the legal fees that will likely arise if SF 235 passes. Libraries are important to their communities and I would hate for them to start to disappear. Our communities would suffer!

02-24-2025

Elizabeth Rog

Hello, I am opposed to SF 235. I am sitting in our public library where I often come to check out books, use the library, and be near to people from many different ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. This is a wholesome place. Our librarians are responsible. I have used this library for 45 years and there has not been a need for this kind of control. From where does the perceived need for such a bill come? I greatly fear that the passage of such a bill could encourage people to bring a costly lawsuit, when all they'd need to do is talk to their librarian about the concert. Librarians are servants of the people, of their communities. They are doing a difficult and excellent job. Please don't put our libraries at risk for lawsuits. Sincerely Yours, Elizabeth Rog

02-24-2025

Lilly Jensen

No on SF235. SF 235 would allow anyone to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. The educational exemption clause for public libraries from Iowas obscenity code does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. SF 235 would remove that protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly and unnecessary legal fees.

02-24-2025

Marin Hanson

Dear subcommittee members:Libraries are vital components of any community: they are places to acquire and share new information, to spend time with family members, to get on the internet, to discuss ideas in book clubs, and much more. Their most vital role is to freely provide access to books and other resources that are useful to community members. SF 235 will hamper libraries' abilities to provide this service. This is an issue of free speech patrons have the right to choose what is appropriate for themselves and their families and authors have the right to share their words and ideas with audiences who choose to read them. In practical terms, this bill would make it nearly impossible for library employees to vet or assess new media releasesthere would simply not be enough time for them to do so for every single book, magazine, movie, etc. Please do not let this bill move out of your subcommittee. Our libraries are too important for them to be hobbled in this way.

02-24-2025

Erik Dutcher

Banning books in public libraries is ridiculous. Please leave our public libraries alone and trust our knowledgeable librarians. The legislature has such better things to do like allocating money for public schools and fixing Iowas crumbling bridges.

02-24-2025

Kimberly Zarecor

I do not support SF 235. Allow librarians to choose books for their communities that meet their needs. Parents and library patrons can select the books that interest them without political interference. If a patron does not want to read a particular book or does not want their family member to read a particular book, they can ignore that book on the shelf.

02-24-2025

Mary Lewis [Mary Lewis]

I am full of horror about the consequences of a bill that would expose libraries to frivolous litigation that would take them away from the services they so well provide for us. I hope that the thoughtful members of our legislature see the danger in such a bill and oppose it vigorously.

02-24-2025

Ellen Longman [Citizen of Iowa and the United States of America]

Dear Subcommittee Members,Please vote against SF235, which would remove the educational exemption clause for public libraries from Iowas obscenity code.While perhaps well meaning in spirit, the bill would deny citizens their constitutional rights to factual information. What you are calling obscenity is often called "anatomy and physiology" by others.A library is supposed to be a place to where people can go to find information they cannot find elsewhere without fear or censure, without having to pay someone for it, and without Big Brother looking over their shoulder.And who do you plan to appoint to decide what's obscene? There are very few people in this country who I would trust to make such judgements for me, for my child, or for you.Ellen LongmanSidney, Iowa

02-24-2025

Laura Blaker

Obscene material in SF 235 and HF 521 is defined as material the average person would find offensive. This is a subjective, vague definition that would expose libraries and cities to lawsuits. This bill could be used to ban minors from medical information, history and biographies, classic literature, and views held by a minority of the population. If this bill became law, it would always require policing ideas and books in the library and at the circulation desk. Minors would have to show identification and what they are browsing or reading in the library as well as what they are checking out. Never mind digital checkoutsthe logistics of blocking access to those would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. It is not practical to know the content of each of the thousands of materials available in a public library or the age of every customer. Making material evaluations is subjective and involves the government making decisions for families instead of parents. Government should not be the gatekeeper of morality. This is an unreasonable burden that puts libraries and communities across the state at risk, limiting First Amendment rights and placing more power into the hands of government.

02-24-2025

Patsy Martinson

This bill would remove the educational exemption clause for public libraries from Iowas obscenity code. SF 235 would allow anyone to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. This current exemption does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields them from frivolous lawsuits. This would remove that protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees.Lets get real. Libraries are not a problem and subjecting them to frivolous lawsuits is a waste of everyones time and money.Do not pass this ridiculous legislation,

02-24-2025

Allie Scott

This is an unnecessary bill that will put undue stress and oversight on libraries, taking away their ability to perform their essential duties for the public good. Additionally, I am concerned the implications this bill has for the right to free association. We should spend our time on things far more important than this.

02-24-2025

Dana Conilogue

Please do not ban books from our public libraries. Do you know the internet exists?? I would much rather my children look for information they are curious about in a book we can talk about rather than finding some nefarious site on the internet.

02-24-2025

Suzanne Johnson

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for even thinking of passing this bill. What's next, public burning of books the far right doesn't approve of? And no, I'm not far left but somewhere in the middle. People have fought long and hard for freedom of speech. Let's not take that away just because a certain group doesn't like all the books. People have a right to be who they are and read about others who believe as they do. What's next, burning the Bible? There are certainly things in there that people don't agree with and that could be considered obscene. Do the right thing and end this bill before it goes any further.

02-24-2025

LINDA SCHNEIDER

OPPOSEDNo one should be telling public library patrons what books they can read. If you're concerned about what your children read, monitor them, like reasonable parents would do. Iowa shouldn't do what Nazi Germany did with book bans. What is next? Burning books on the Capitol steps?

02-24-2025

Dan Perry

I strongly oppose this bill. Obscenity is subjective and it seems that this bill is trying to find ways to censor and silence voices, ideas and knowledge. The voices it is aimed at are the marginalized and the minority.It puts the decision making power in unqualified, uninformed and agenda driven hands. Freedom of speech and expression are still part of this country despite all of the bad actors driving legislation like this garbage.

02-24-2025

Greta Oberender

Please vote NO on SF235. Banning particular types of reading material is unfair and unnecessary. If people don't want to read certain literature, they are free to pass by. Your prior bills claiming to give parents more say in their children's education should be taken as the parents' opportunity to supervise their children's reading material. They should not have the right to determine what others read.

02-24-2025

Julie Jackson

I urge you to stop SF 235. Banning any books from a public library is unacceptable. Leave it up to the parents what books their child can check out of a public library. Banning books from a public library is an example of the government overstepping its purpose.

02-24-2025

Jennifer Cantine

No matter what side of the isle youre on, I hope everyone has the good sense to stop this bill before it is moved any closer to becoming a law. The idea that libraries are in any way part of the problem our society has with exposure to inappropriate content is laughable. Kids are assigned their own devices at as young as age 4. Restricting materials in public libraries will only add to the ignorance our communities already suffer from. Do your part and allow Americans to continue to be educated!!!!

02-24-2025

Janice Smith

Book bans use fallsehoods, fear, and hatred to dehumanize, dismiss, and diminish important voices in the public sphere. IOwa is second only to Florida in the banning of books. A majority o of banned titles are written for young adult audiences, and depict topics young people confront in the real world, including grief and death, experiences with substance abuse, suicide, depression and mental health concerns, and sexual violence.Banning books on these topics (or on books with people and characters of color and books with LGBTQ+ people and characters) deprives young people of the ability to see themselves in the books they read, or to learn they are not alone facing various issues such as sexual violence, addictionsAs a retired librarian with more than 3 decades of experience, I know that librarians and teacherlibrarians are trained in collection development and in book selection.Parents may restrict what they want their children to read, but no one (especially hate groups such as Moms for Liberty) has the right to restrict entire communities from reading a given book. There are more important issues: educational funding, mental health, housing, transportation. A minority of extremists should not be dictating what Iowans read.

02-24-2025

Jennifer Hunt

Vote no on this bill, it is not necessary. I do not believe in censorship. The current exemption protects libraries from baseless lawsuits. Removing it would allow anyone to repeatedly sue a library over materials they personally dislike, regardless of merit, draining public resources and time.

02-24-2025

Beth Kingdon [Readlyn Public Library]

I am very disappointed to hear that you are even considering SF 235. This frivolous, ridiculous bill would open cities and libraries up to frivolous lawsuits for materials anyone could find offensive for any reason, and that goes against everything libraries stand for and against our patrons' wishes. Should such a bill pass, the majority of libraries and cities would end up not serving our patrons AT ALL. Libraries are the heart and soul of our communities; please let us do our jobs and continue to serve our communities without the looming threat of a lawsuit because someone was offended by who knows what in a book, movie, or material in a library. The current exemption already in place does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields us from frivolous lawsuits. SF 235 would remove that protection and expose libraries, schools, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees. Our patrons and communities and educational institutions and libraries are already facing funding shortfalls; please allow us to continue to serve our patrons of all ages by shooting down this ridiculous bill.

02-24-2025

Adrienne Coffeen [- Select -]

SF 235 Please vote to KEEP THE EXISTING LAW in place which protects libraries and educational institutions. If you change the law, meritless lawsuits will be filed against these institutions and their municipal government. Do you want taxpayers' money tied up in court cases? Don't tamper with this law to satisfy a minority of Iowans who want strict bans on books.

02-24-2025

Laura Thompson

This bill is ridiculous and should be struck down as such.Do you remember when Trump said that he loved the poorly educated? It appears as though Senator Salmon shares the sentiment. This bill adds fuel to the already wellburning fire that is propelling Iowa to be even more the laughing stock of the country. While we once excelled in education, values, and democracy, we have abandoned it all and Iowa is quickly becoming a state where the convictions of a few are being forcefully imposed upon the masses. Although the current movement began under the guise of protecting children, it is no longer even thinly veiled and the true, hatefilled colors of Senator Salmon and those who support this bill are shining through unabashedly. Not only do they desire the complete silencing of LGBTQIA+ voices, they want to enact what is essentially censorship for the entire State of Iowa. This is quite clearly a joint attempt, along with SF347 which Senator Salmon also introduced, to effectuate the demise of public libraries and the free, unbiased information that they provide to the citizens of Iowa on a daily basis. Having worked at a public library myself for six years, I know that public libraries are the lifeblood of the communities that they serve. This bill, along with its companion and counterpart bills, are designed to create such a chilling effect upon the public libraries that they will no longer be able to provide the community with anything more than patently obvious children's books for fear of a frivolous lawsuit. There will no longer be a repository of differing ideas containing works that have literary, artistic, political, and/or scientific value to grow or challenge one's opinions because the libraries will have ceased to exist as we know them. It is a shame that Senator Salmon and those who introduced this bill believe that they know better and wish to abandon the Miller Test as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Miller v. California over fifty years ago and which clearly defines obscene material. To reject the federal standard will only serve to further isolate, degrade, and marginalize Iowa and its citizens. Furthermore, if we lose our public libraries, we will be a state filled to the brim with poorly educated individuals which, contrary to the ramblings of those in charge, is not what we want for Iowa. We need to see this movement for what it really is and to stop it in its tracks. This is clearly a blatant attempt to deconstruct our free society as we know it and I, for one, refuse to become a citizen of Gilead. Please vote no on this bill and encourage your colleagues to put their time and energy into bills that will actually benefit the people of Iowa.Laura A. Thompson

02-24-2025

Lorrie Oldenburger

I would hope this bill essentially censuring library materials will NOT pass in this committee. It puts essentially every library at risk of uncalled for lawsuits and legal fees. I know of NO libraries that puts obscene materials available to anyone. Lets use some common sense!

02-24-2025

Cindy Stefani

Banning books is WRONG. If you dont want to read a book, dont. If you dont want your child to read a book, then be an Adult, be a Parent, and tell them your feelings and your reasoning. Public libraries are a safe, comfortable institution that provide many, many services to the citizens of our state. Stop with the micromanaging, stop the book bans!!!

02-24-2025

Rebecca Wiese

I am understanding that this bill SF235 could quite possibly put an undue burden on libraries to give proof of their adherence to the importance of virtuous and common sense decent behavior of appropriateness of content for children. I further understand that the restrictions may be onerous to library access for adults. Please don't go there.Rebecca WieseRetired, Avid Reader, Decorah History Book Advocate, user of public libraries for 70 years. In the name of Beezus, please don't fix what is not broken.

02-24-2025

Maddie Bassman

I oppose this bill. As a lifelong Iowan I do not agree that this bill will protect anyone but it will impact public service and limit what libraries are able to do in the future. As a 1935 Nazi order stated, the goal was to keep German cultural life pure from all harmful and undesirable literature and this will particularly protect the youth from corrupting influences. Please reconsider this bill.

02-24-2025

Margaret Hoel

Vote NO on SF 235The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. The legal fees from multiple lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget and potentially forcing cities to decide they can no longer support having a library due to the liability.

02-24-2025

Nancy Gates Madsen

As a constituent who utilizes the public library on a regular basis, I strongly urge you to oppose this bill. Our taxpayer dollars should help support public libraries, the educational materials, and the valuable programming they provide to our community. The educational exemption clause currently shields libraries from frivolous lawsuitsplease do not strip these necessary protections. Taxpayer dollars should be used to support the public service provided by libraries, NOT to pay legal fees to defend against lawsuits filed by individuals who may object to materials, regardless of the merit of the suit.

02-24-2025

Paul Melde

Book bans are unconscionable. While I personally think anyone, of virtually any age, should be allowed to read anything (because I read the Catholic KJ Bible cover to cover before I was 13, and there's some nasty goings on in there), I respect a parent's right to restrict their juvenile children. This is not for the State to adjudicate. Parental choice. You wanted it to fund schools fine. You did that. Two edged sword.

02-24-2025

Kathy Buzza [Friends of Decorah Public Library member]

Im writing today to oppose S.F. 235, which would remove the educational exemption clause for public libraries from Iowas obscenity code. The bill would allow anyone to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. The current educational exemption does not mean public libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields public libraries from frivolous lawsuits. The bill removes that protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees. I am a Decorah Public Library user and member of the Friends of the Decorah Public Library. Prior to retiring, I worked in an Iowa academic library for 18 years. Before that, I was the director of a Minnesota public library for 10 years.

02-24-2025

Tammy Wood

Please vote no on this bill. The wording of this bill is frightening and there is no saying how it can be interpreted. There shouldn't be restrictions on libraries and what books they provide. It is the parents responsibility to determine was is appropriate for their children. There are so many extremely popular books that libraries provide to those that can't go out and buy every book they want to read. Libraries fill the need for those of us that enjoy fun, interesting stories that give us a break from reality.

02-24-2025

Jen Ferguson

Please vote no on SF235. There is already a legal definition for obscenity that all public libraries must follow. It is called the Miller Test, and it is widely recognized. The exemption mentioned above protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption is removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over material they personally object to, regardless of merit. The exemption in the current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning the only time the library could claim an exemption would be for educational purposes. If a library were to distribute pornography, then it would not be exempt.Free speech and access to information is at stake. This allows the state to ban books and other materials that have educational value from public libraries and schools. Doing this harms libraries, free speech and Iowans.

02-24-2025

Elizabeth Kensak

Please vote no on this bill. Censorship is a violation of the free speech that has historically been our right as American citizens. I served as a Trustee on our library board for 12 years, and Ive dealt with patrons wishing to ban books they disagree with, and this is not the direction that Iowa should be heading.

02-24-2025

Bev Peters

Our libraries are important for our communities & to provide a variety of books for us to choose from. You do not have the right to tell us what we cannot read. Lets keep our tax dollars here instead of giving them away to corporations, private schools, & the wealthy.

02-24-2025

Andrew Rogers

I oppose this bill. Theres no need to censor libraries who provide an invaluable part of our society by providing opportunities to learn about different ways of thinking. Parents have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children. Banning books arbitrarily will only hinder our future generations.

02-24-2025

Alison Cocks

I oppose SF 235z. It is an infringement on my rights as a citizen and a parent to choose what books to be read in our family. It is not the governments job to dictate what we can read. It is an invasion of our privacy and our civil rights.

02-24-2025

Jenni Kothavale

Please vote NO on SF 235. Let's continue to support Iowa's public libraries as places that are free and open to ALL people to choose materials they are interested in. Advancing this bill is suggesting there is a problem where none exists. Obscenity is already strictly defined, so the only outcome of this dangerous legislation is forcing libraries to close because they don't have the funds available to defend against unwarranted lawsuits. We need vibrant libraries in every town in Iowa. Let's advance our communities with knowledge, not succumb to manufactured fear. Thank you!

02-24-2025

Steven Corcoran

Hello,Just wondering, don't you people have anything more important then this to do? Libraries have been functioning just fine for years without your assistance. I'm sure they will be just fine in the future, unless you folks have any plans for book burnings. Sincerely, Steve Corcoran

02-24-2025

Wendy Stevens

I strongly oppose SF 235. I do not believe one person should have the power to bring a lawsuit against our public library over materials that they object to. I do not want my public library to be constrained in ways that prevent adults from accessing materials that should be available. I do not want my tax dollars to be used to address lawsuits about what I can or cannot access from the public library. I feel that our public library staff has and will continue to apply common sense and discretion as they choose books and other materials for the library. Let them do their job.

02-24-2025

Haley McCoy

I am writing to oppose SF 235 as a concerned parent and resident of Des Moines. My child is a student here in Des Moines and we utilize the Central Library and its surrounding locations at least weekly. This change that has been proposed has our family extremely concerned about the freedom of speech and right to education so close to home. I have no concern that the wonderful librarians we have on staff are unable to do their jobs in protecting our children and I would like the government to stay out of the selecting process entirely.

02-24-2025

Natalie Tapscott

Librarians are important and overworked members of our community. This legislation would make them more more at risk for meritless claims about the contents of the library. The current exemption as it stands simply shields libraries from frivolous lawsuits, and saves taxpayer dollars. I urge you to keep it that way. I want my local librarians to do lead education events and support reading. I want my taxpayer dollars supporting librarians not putting them at risk for meritless claims.

02-24-2025

Crystal Duffy

This witch hunt on libraries is ridiculous. Do you really think kids are getting obscene materials from libraries and not THE INTERNET???? Do any of you understand how the internet works? If not, it's probably time to retire.

02-24-2025

Heather Campbell

The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. The legal fees from multiple lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget and potentially forcing cities to decide they can no longer support having a library due to the liability. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.This bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship.The exemption in current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning that the only time a library could claim the exemption is for educational purposes. If a library was distributing pornographic material, it would not be exempt.

02-24-2025

Laree Schouweiler

Dear Members,I am writing to express my vehement opposition to Senate File 235, a bill that seeks to repeal the obscenity exemptions currently afforded to public libraries and educational institutions in Iowa. This proposed legislation is not only detrimental to the accessibility of educational materials but also represents an absurd overreach that threatens the foundational principles of intellectual freedom and education in our state.The existing exemption under Code section 728.7 serves a critical function: it allows educators and librarians to provide materials deemed appropriate for educational purposes without the looming threat of criminal prosecution. By repealing this exemption, SF 235 would subject these professionals to potential legal action for disseminating content that is essential for comprehensive education. This could lead to the exclusion of classic literature, historical documents, and informative works that are indispensable to a wellrounded curriculum.The Iowa Library Association has articulated concerns that the passage of SF 235 will create a chilling effect that leads to overrestriction of legal content, and censorship. The fear of legal repercussions may compel libraries and schools to preemptively remove or restrict access to materials, thereby depriving students and the public of diverse perspectives and critical information.It is patently absurd to equate educational materials curated by professional educators and librarians with obscene content. The current exemption acknowledges the discernment and expertise of these professionals in selecting ageappropriate and pedagogically sound materials. Eliminating this safeguard undermines their professional judgment and equates their educational mission with criminal activity, a notion that is both illogical and insulting.Advocates against SF 235 have highlighted that repealing these exemptions could lead to a barrage of lawsuits against libraries and educational institutions. This litigious environment would not only drain public resources but also stifle the educational mission of these institutions, as they become entangled in legal battles over the content they provide.Senate File 235 poses a significant threat to the accessibility of educational materials and the intellectual freedom of Iowans. Its passage would foster an environment of censorship, fear, and legal uncertainty that is antithetical to the values of education and free inquiry. I strongly urge you to reject this misguided legislation and to uphold the protections that enable our public libraries and educational institutions to serve their vital roles in our society.Sincerely,Laree Schouweiler Decorah, IA(She/her)

02-24-2025

Amy Bachman

Censorship of any kind is not tolerated in this country. That's what this aims to do. Public libraries are there to serve the needs of their communities and as a librarian I can say with absolute certainty that Iowans do no want or need unconstitutional bans and censorships choosing what they are allowed to read.

02-24-2025

Heather Free

This bill is absolutely unnecessary! Politics need to stay out of libraries, which are institutions for ALL, no matter your opinion whether something should be in it or not. The Miller Test is already in place, so this is not needed. The internet is a lot scarier world for obscene information, and minors have that search ability at their fingertips. Stay out of libraries!

02-24-2025

Ketel Paulsen

I believe the Frist place in society should be a library and all possibilities should exist there. Obscenity death, Christianity, Islamic faith. Rape, other people's in the furtherance of religion, as well as the beauty and love of our own and each other's bodies and seeing ourselves within nature. we are not a Christian state nor an Islamic state nor a Jewish state Nora Hindu state, we are a rainbow beauty, and everything should be available within it for all to partake. Any less makes us less human and more prone to fascism.

02-24-2025

Colleen Wetli

Please think carefully about the effects of this proposed bill. Libraries and education institutions need to be protected to provide a multitude of types of literature and information. These institutions need to be supported and reassured that they would not have lawsuits brought against them just because they offer individuals various reading and visual material. What have we come to as a society that individual responsibility and decision making is not emphasized anymore? Please use common sense in this matter and let public libraries and educational institutions offer reading material. (Example: Could institutions be sued over a book such as To Kill a Mockingbird because of the courtroom suggested topic?) Thank you,Colleen Wetli

02-24-2025

Jean Daywitt

I would like to know your reasonings for this bill? I thought that the republican party was about giving the parents rights, such as school choice. Why not give them choice as to what their child/ren can read? Make up your mind about which way it is. Jean Daywitt

02-24-2025

ERIN OHRLUND

The obscenity exemption for public libraries should not be repealed. As a former public library trustee in Le Mars, I have seen the policies that our library has in place for patrons to challenge materials that they find objectionable, and those policies are clear and readily available. I know that the vast majority of libraries in the state have similar policies in place as a condition of their accreditation. Broad censorship of library materials is unnecessary because policies for challenging and removal of materials are already established.

02-24-2025

Lynn Macal

To those who make decisions for me. I am an educated educator who has worked with children for 38 years. My students have ranged from 5 to 10 years of age. My task has been to broaden their world experience beyond their day to day existence. Our library gave them opportunities to broaden their world view. These adults who spoke 57 languages or dialects needed to see a big broad world in order to become strong citizens. Please allow them the respect and opportunity they deserve to make their own decisions.

02-24-2025

Benjamin Langton

Vote NO Protect Our Libraries from Outside Political InfluencePublic libraries are not distributing obscene materials to children, nor are they engaging in harmful activities. They are essential pillars of a free and educated society, providing resources to everyone in a safe and welcoming environment.For generations, public libraries have been built and maintained through the dedication of local communities, serving as invaluable hubs of knowledge, learning, and opportunity. Their importance dates back to the Founding Fathers, who recognized access to information as a fundamental rightnot a privilege reserved for the wealthy or powerful.Outsiders with political agendas should not dictate what our community can read, learn, or access. This bill threatens the very principles of intellectual freedom and democracy. A vote in favor would undermine the hard work that has made our public libraries a cornerstone of American society.Stand against censorship and outside interference. Protect our right to free access to information. Vote NO.

02-24-2025

Teresa Wellman Wellman

I absolute OPPOSE this bill. I do not condone a nanny state. Public library materials are already curated for children and adults. It is not the responsibility of the library staff to police or ban what materials my children/grandchildren have access to. It is MY responsibility just as its the responsibility of other parents to monitor their children. The libraries should never be held responsible. This bill is ridiculous on its faces d opens the legislature to 1st amendment lawsuits.

02-24-2025

Kristen Underwood

Please do not pass this bill. SF 235 would allow anyone to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. This current exemption does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields them from frivolous lawsuits. This would remove that protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees.

02-24-2025

Jess Netolicky

Please vote NO on this bill. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation that enables the most narrowminded individualsor even passersbyto take offense at library materials, file complaints, and force libraries to either defend themselves at great cost or remove the materials entirely. This extreme overreach will create a chilling effect on library collections and staff decisions, imposing undue restrictions when no reasonable person is calling for such excessive oversight. Libraries already have established processes for addressing concerns, allowing for thoughtful discussion and community input. There is no need for the legislature to impose broad, onesizefitsall regulations on what should remain a local matter.

02-24-2025

Jan Netolicky

The Republican party of my parents believed in small government, individual freedoms, and personal responsibility. This bill is the antithesis of those vaunted principles. By eliminating obscenity exemptions for public libraries, you will be a government of intrusion, a government of unprecedented overreach, and a government which tells Iowans we are not responsible enough to make decisions for ourselves and our families. Are you reading the comments submitted by concerned Iowans? I have. Overwhelmingly, those voices are telling you vote no on this bill, and I cannot improve upon the reasoned eloquence and vehemence of those arguments. Do our voices matter? Does our state motto matter? Whose liberties are prized? Whose rights are maintained? Vote no.

02-24-2025

Sara Richmond

There is no need for this bill. Public libraries are perfectly capable of choosing their own content without censorship. As parents have always done, they can choose what is appropriate for their own children, and the rest of us can have access to the materials we choose appropriate for ourselves. Do not censor our public libraries.

02-24-2025

Kim Kietzman

SF 235 removes the rights of parents to choose what their own children access and sets librarians up to parent children on behalf of the government. Public libraries provide choices within the limits of materials that do not pass the Miller Test. No librarian seeks to force materials on anyone, they do seek to provide materials for all Iowans.

02-24-2025

Danielle Benford

This bill is not necessary and should not be passed. Our libraries are a place for everyone to have access to materials. If you do not want to read a book, do not check it out. This is a Public Library for the Public at large. We should be able to choose what we want to read and what we dont want to read and that goes for our kids as well. Iowa need not be a nanny State.

02-24-2025

Olympia Ortega

VOTE NO! I am absolutely appalled and outraged by HF 274 a repulsive assault on our sacred First Amendment rights. This bills reckless repeal of Code section 728.7 would strip public libraries and schools of their essential exemptions, forcing our educators and librarians into a paralyzing climate of selfcensorship under the constant threat of lawsuits. It is disgraceful that our government would impose arbitrary, morally bankrupt standards of obscenity on institutions that have long served as the beating heart of free inquiry and community learning.This isnt about protecting children its about enforcing a narrow, intolerant agenda on every Iowan. Parents, not bureaucrats, must determine what is appropriate for their own children. Allowing HF 274 to pass would be a gross violation of intellectual freedom, condemning our communities to censorship and government overreach that stifles creativity and independent thought.I demand that you reject this grotesque bill immediately. Preserve our libraries, our schools, and the freedom to learn and think without fear.

02-24-2025

Brittney Lerner

I urge you to vote NO. Censorship should not have a place here in America. Trust your constituents to make their own choices for their families. A library should be a place that everyone can find what they are looking for not just one group of people. This law is unnecessary and a waste of tax payers money. If someone doesnt like a book they can choose not to check it out. SF 235 is infringing on our right to have access to information and will have negative impacts on our communities.

02-24-2025

Nancy Gregory

Please vote no on SF235. This bill is unnecessary, as current law already addresses obscenity and value issues. Libraries also have policies in place already for citizens to request potentially objectionable materials be removed. This bill also opens libraries and cities to repeated, frivolous lawsuits, which will require staff time and public funds to address and may result in library closures. Public libraries are vital community assets and exist for the benefit of all please do not endanger this vital resource and infringe on the right of every Iowan to choose what they read.

02-24-2025

Teresa Behal [none]

Bill SF 235 must be defeated. Book banning is unconstitutional. Freedom of speech means allowing all views to be taken into consideration. This bill is specious in its proposal. Public libraries should never be restricted from offering materials that are controversial.

02-24-2025

Christi Olson

Please vote to defeat this bill. As a public librarian and as a parent, I implore you to allow parents and guardians to make their own decisions about the materials their children can access this is not a librarian's job, nor should it be. Going to the public library is not compulsory, so if someone is unhappy with the materials or programs at their library, they can choose not to utilize those materials and services. Vote no on this bill.

02-25-2025

Elizabeth Hoover de Galvez

Please vote no to SF 235.Iowa's librarians and teachers are supporting literacy and getting kids excited about books and reading. In a state where two out of three 4th graders score below proficient in reading, this work is vital.To suggest that these hardworking professionals have an agenda to corrupt children by providing pornography is demoralizing. Please visit a public library and check out the hundreds of ageappropriate books available for children and the program calendar which often includes multiple weekly storytimes for children.Librarians and educators are not providing obscene materials. This legislation would expose Iowa's cities to a risk of defending against meritless lawsuits. It could scare librarians away from buying popular and educational books that the community wants out of fear that they could be criminalized. Please do not infringe on Iowan's civil liberties by passing legislation that would limit access to educational materials.

02-25-2025

Amy Blair

Please oppose this bill. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. Keep the state out of parental choice of what they allow their kids to read.

02-25-2025

Veronica Ruse

I am a current library science student at the University of Iowa, and I work as a library assistant in Grinnells public library. Every day I wake up eager to serve the member of my community, from little newborn babies with their parents to octogenarians. This bill is incredibly concerning to me, and I am dismayed to see our legislature continue to attack public libraries and librarians. I ask the legislature to consider the following: 1) Public libraries exist to serve everyone in the community and 2) We already divide the library collections into age appropriate sections like Childrens, Teen, and Adult. If a child has picked up a fiction novel shelved in the adult section, I believe the responsibility should rightly be placed on the parent to monitor what their child is reading rather than trying to charge librarians with obscenity (!). This legislation will only lead to a waste of taxpayer money and undue harassment of hardworking Iowans. Moreover, freedom of speech of one of our nations most cherished virtues. The state of Iowa should not be in the business of forcing public libraries to censor collection materials, rip books out of childrens hands, or ban children from different sections of the library. And the state of Iowa should certainly not be trying to charge individual librarians with obscenity! I am a government employee and am very proud of the work I do to serve and help the residents of Grinnell every single day. It dismays me to see my profession maligned in this manner and the institutions and ideals which make our nation great attacked in the name of fear mongering. If the legislature is concerned about obscenity, Id like to see the state of Iowa implement age verification for pornographic websites. I can assure our legislatures that todays youth are far more likely to be exposed to inappropriate materials by accessing the internet on their own devices than by visiting the public library.

02-25-2025

Cid Mcmillan

Ok sending again since you made no positive updates and changed the bill number. This law is absurd. Banning books or anything of the sort is the thing nazis did, and the khmer ruge did. Any sort of book banning or laws that will intentionally lead to book banning has never been on the right side of history. This is another law intended to have a chilling affect and shut down libraries. These libraries serve our communities, including adults. The books that moms for liberty keep talking about being in libraries are in the ADULT section and they are dishonestly moving them to other locations. Any simple research on the location information on the side of the book will prove the worries they have unfounded. If youre really concerned about our children then focus on the Catholic Church or other entities with an history of child abuse.

02-25-2025

Carol Turner

Let's stay out of the book banning business. I didn't want book bans in schools. I REALLY don't want them in public libraries. No one has the right to tell me what I can and can't read. Nor do I have the right to tell you.

02-25-2025

Laura Demuth

Good Morning,I understand that the Senate Education subcommittee will soon be discussing SF 235, a bill that would remove the educational exemption clause for public libraries from Iowas obscenity code. SF 235 would allow anyone to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. This current exemption does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields them from frivolous lawsuits. This would remove that protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees. Our public library is an important community resource, and the passage of this bill would put our library at unnecessary risk of frivolous law suits. I strongly urge you to vote against the passage of SF 235.Sincerely,Laura Demuth

02-25-2025

Grace Rogers

Vote NO to SF235. Are you serious right now? This bill effectively allows obscenity charges for materials students view in libraries or at art exhibitions censors what those facilities can provide or display due to the presence of minors. I know there's a lot of history to know about but it's pretty widely accepted that those that banned books and art were ALWAYS on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. I implore you to listen to THE MAJORITY of your constituents and vote NO to this bill.

02-25-2025

Kathy Parsons

I am writing again to express my objection to this bill. While most of the comments are from the public libraries' viewpoint (and rightly so), this bill will hurt the K12 and higher education institutions as well. It is unnecessary, as obscenity has been defined by law with the "Miller Test" and the "Serious Value Test." The beauty of this country is the right to know, learn, and discuss differing viewpoints and then reaching your own conclusions. I do not want the State to control my learning and reading. Thank you for your time and consideration.

02-25-2025

Kathy Parsons

P.S. My values in life and work is to do what it right and do no harm. Harm can be viewed two ways; harmed by seeing controversial materials or harm from not knowing about controversial topics. I lean to the latter. I take the stance that it is up to the individual to determine what is appropriate for them. As for parents, they may determine for their children what appropriate but not for mine. This bill is wrong and will do more harm than good; vote no. Thank you.

02-25-2025

Alan Vazquez

Absolutely not. Banning media is the most unAmerican thing I can think of. For people who claim to love the constitution and the rule of law, I think you'd feel more at home in North Korea. That way you can worship a dictator and advocate for banning material that's inconvenient for you more comfortably. Namaste assholes.

02-25-2025

Abigail Sitzmann

Vote NO! There are already provisions for obscene materials, with library exemptions applying only to educational materials. Everyone has a right to access information. I do not want to see an Iowa where educational materials in libraries are censored.

02-25-2025

Russell Schouweiler

Dear Members,I am writing to express my vehement opposition to Senate File 235, a bill that seeks to repeal the obscenity exemptions currently afforded to public libraries and educational institutions in Iowa. This proposed legislation is not only detrimental to the accessibility of educational materials but also represents an absurd overreach that threatens the foundational principles of intellectual freedom and education in our state.If we as a state are okay with infringing on our citizens constitutional rights why don't you also work on the biggest danger to our children and the number one cause of death for children in the u.s.that would be banning guns. If you are okay taking away rights to access info than be okay with opening the door to taking away the rights to guns as well. It is a slippery slope.Erosion of Educational IntegrityThe existing exemption under Code section 728.7 serves a critical function: it allows educators and librarians to provide materials deemed appropriate for educational purposes without the looming threat of criminal prosecution. By repealing this exemption, SF 235 would subject these professionals to potential legal action for disseminating content that is essential for comprehensive education. This could lead to the exclusion of classic literature, historical documents, and informative works that are indispensable to a wellrounded curriculum.Chilling Effect on Information AccessThe Iowa Library Association has articulated concerns that the passage of SF 235 will create a chilling effect that leads to overrestriction of legal content, and censorship. The fear of legal repercussions may compel libraries and schools to preemptively remove or restrict access to materials, thereby depriving students and the public of diverse perspectives and critical information.Absurdity of the Proposed RepealIt is patently absurd to equate educational materials curated by professional educators and librarians with obscene content. The current exemption acknowledges the discernment and expertise of these professionals in selecting ageappropriate and pedagogically sound materials. Eliminating this safeguard undermines their professional judgment and equates their educational mission with criminal activity, a notion that is both illogical and insulting.Potential for Legal ChaosAdvocates against SF 235 have highlighted that repealing these exemptions could lead to a barrage of lawsuits against libraries and educational institutions. This litigious environment would not only drain public resources but also stifle the educational mission of these institutions, as they become entangled in legal battles over the content they provide.ConclusionSenate File 235 poses a significant threat to the accessibility of educational materials and the intellectual freedom of Iowans. Its passage would foster an environment of censorship, fear, and legal uncertainty that is antithetical to the values of education and free inquiry. I strongly urge you to reject this misguided legislation and to uphold the protections that enable our public libraries and educational institutions to serve their vital roles in our society.Sincerely,Russell Schouweiler

02-25-2025

Robin Knight

I oppose this bill and recommend that our legislators have common sense as they vote on this bill. Historically, banning books does not better our society, but strangles the freedoms that we so enjoy. We all have a responsibility to make decisions about what we read, what we watch on TV, what kinds of video games we allow in our home. It is up to a personal decision and not the state or federal government to make those decisions for us as a free society.This kind of censorship is against our freedom of speech and should never be tolerated in a free society.If parents dont want their children to read certain books then its up to them to PARENT! There is so much talk about parental rights. They should use them and monitor what books their children checked out at the library. Go with them, talk to them about choices, but one parents idea of what is acceptable should not be pushed in another. Vote NO. As a reminder, we are watching how you vote!

02-25-2025

Sarah Heilman

This is ridiculous. Vote no. The public library exemption in the obscenity code protects libraries from frivolous lawsuits. If the exemption were removed, anyone could sue the library repeatedly over materials they objected to, regardless of the merit. The legal fees from multiple lawsuits could paralyze a library and its city, consuming the budget and potentially forcing cities to decide they can no longer support having a library due to the liability. This bill is unnecessary, because obscenity has already been defined by Law with the Miller Test and the Serious Value Test.This bill restricts free speech and access to information, and allows the state to ban books and other materials from libraries and schools that have educational and cultural value. This bill strips citizens of their right to a library free of censorship.The exemption in current law is not a blanket exemption. It only covers educational purposes, meaning that the only time a library could claim the exemption is for educational purposes. If a library was distributing pornographic material, it would not be exempt.

02-25-2025

Lara Moellers [Marion Public Library]

I would strongly suggest saying no to this bill. The removes power from the people, something our country has always stood for. Libraries do not promote obscene materials and no one is ever required to justify their choices in reading material. This bill would remove power from the individual it takes oversight away from staff who are trained in their fields, it takes power away from parents and caregivers over what their children and charges have access to, and it forces a community to use one mind and one viewpoint to move towards the future. Don't turn Iowans into mindless robots. Allow us to decide what is best for ourselves.

02-25-2025

Melinda Vanags

Banning the arts is what Nazis did. Never in history were the people burning books on the right side of history. This is what fascism looks like. Weve given up democracy to cater to the few WEIRDASS people that are projecting their desires to harm children onto the rest of us. Being gay/trans is not inherent sexual. But because these WEIRDASS people cant separate the two, now kids cant have books that have two moms? Iowa, youre being ridiculous. Then you scratch your head and wonder what you can do to get people to move here. No one wants to live in this shit hole because youve taken us back to 1942.

02-25-2025

Danica Stoll

This bill is a pearlclutching witch hunt that is wasting resources. No, librarians are not perverts distributing sexually explicit material to children. No, material intended for adults is not in the children's section. No, explicit material is not available at public libraries and obscenity guidelines are already followed. I recommend everyone actually go to their public libraries and parent their own children to determine what their children are exposed to and prevent personal definitions of "obscenity" from being viewed.

02-25-2025

Jackie Chow

Please vote NO on this bill which is unnecessary and a huge abuse of power. You will be sending us on a slippery slope of censorship. The likelihood of a child being harmed by accidentally coming across adult material in a library is so miniscule compared to the harm you will be doing to our freedom of speech guaranteed in the constitution and the freedom and access to materials that we have as citizens of the United States. Parents can parent their own children, they should not be relying on the government as coparents. Try to be like how Iowa used to be, a place that held different opinions and viewpoints and valued freedoms, don't be like Nazi Germany. This law is ridiculous and embarrassing, I vehemently oppose it, vote NO.

02-25-2025

Zoë Frey

Let this be a choice for parents and a choice for individuals to make. Do you know how embarrassing it is to be one of the smaller states, but the second leading in book bans? This violates the first amendment which is so ironic coming from a party that "loves freedom" but strictly represses instead. This is controlling. Trust that individuals have critical thinking skills (maybe you lack in that which is why you don't understand how this looks). Not trusting the community to make decisions sounds a lot like being a dictator.

02-25-2025

Kristin Dietzel

I am urging you to stop the progress of this bill. This is a ridiculous bill that offers no solution to a real problem faced by your constituents in Iowa.You have received hundreds of public comments in opposition to this bill and so has the House. This bill comes after Iowans' First Amendment rights and opens the door to further censorship and legal liability for educators and library professionals. Obscenity is already defined by law and must be determined by the courts. This bill is an utter waste of time and distraction when there are urgent educational issues at stake in Iowa.Lawmakers and their families are free to have their own beliefs and parental values, but don't come after mine.

02-25-2025

Michael Wright

Please oppose this bill. It will have a chilling effect on public libraries, their staff, and the citizens who use them. I will posit that this bill is not to prevent "obscene" materials from being present in libraries, as there are adequate guardrails in place now to weed out such items. Rather, this is about denying access to materials that the writers might not approve of. In the past the answer was to not read them, as opposed to making sure that no one can. Please allow Iowans to make their own decisions about what is appropriate for them and their families. Vote no.

02-25-2025

Pamela Torresdal

I strongly oppose SF235 removing the exemption clause for public libraries from Iowa's obscenity code and thereby allowing anyone to bring a lawsuit against their public library and city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. The current exemption does not mean that libraries can have hardcore pornography in their collections or distribute obscene materials to minors, it simply shields public libraries from frivolous lawsuits and costly legal fees to defend themselves. Removing this exemption for public libraries is unnecessary. I am not aware of any solid evidence that minors are being harmed by the materials they can currently access at public libraries. But if a parent is concerned about their child accessing materials the parent does not want their child to see, that parent can readily review and supervise what a minor accesses. I view this attempt to remove the exemption clause for public libraries from Iowa's obscenity code as an attempt at censorship and as an act that would have a serious negative impact on the many wonderful services public libraries provide to their communities and a wide array of constituents. Please do not pass SF235.

02-25-2025

Taelor Donnolly

VOTE NO! Public libraries and schools serve diverse communities with different values and beliefs. Libraries and schools already provide parents with tools to guide their children's reading choices. Exempting libraries from obscenity laws prevents unnecessary government interference while still allowing local decision making and parental involvement. The government and the is not a parent. Librarian's should not be the ones to monitor what other people's children are reading, that is the parent's job. The librarian's job is to provide access to materials and they should not have to fear punishment for doing their job when the thing they would be punished for is something that should be handled at the parental level. We should not censor ALL for the beliefs of some.

02-25-2025

Erin Horst

This shows a total lack of understanding of not just libraries but also the actual constitution. This affects books written for adults. If parents don't want their kids reading adult books, that's the parents' choice. It isn't the government's choice. You should feel bad about this.

02-25-2025

Lyndsie Pitzenberger

Please say no to SF235. This bill does not protect children. As a former social worker, I worked with many children who had experienced trauma none due to books. However, books often played an essential role in helping children understand and process their issues. Books HEAL! Where is the research that shows this bill is necessary? What is the percentage of children who have been negatively impacted by a book? Passage of this bill will leave public libraries and cities vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits, wasting taxpayer money and everyone's time. If you truly care about protecting children, address school shootings rather than attack public libraries.

02-25-2025

Carrie Wright

I support this bill. While there is current law regarding obscenity, due to the exemption for public schools and libraries, obscenity can easily be distributed to minors, and the current law does nothing to protect them. Any authorities who might want to take action, cannot because of the exemption clause. Please support this bill.

02-25-2025

April Bril

Please do NOT pass the SF 235 bill. It would remove protection and expose libraries, cities, and the taxpayers who fund them to costly legal fees. Our libraries do amazing things and offer so many opportunities to our communities. This bill would hurt our library and our community and could cost taxpayers lots of money. It would force the library to remove all nonchildren books and resources. Please, do NOT pass this bill. Thank you, The Bril Family

02-25-2025

David Faldet

Please reject SF 235, a bill that would remove the protection public libraries have from frivolous lawsuits. Public libraries have been established to provide professional staff, accountable to local patrons and taxpayers, and local boards, comprised of publicminded citizens, to provide materials that provide Iowans with a lifeline to the whole planet and the wisdom and experience of the ages, as well as uplifting entertainment. Libraries serve us all especially rural Iowans with limited access to books, and anybody whose budget does not allow them to buy every book they want to read. Passing this bill would subject these valuable institutions as well as city governments to costly drains on limited budgets, and annoying distractions from the need of libraries and city governments to serve the people with desperately required services. Please do not do your constituents the disservice of allowing crazy, showboating, or bandstanding individuals easy opportunity to gain attention at public expense through this bill.

02-25-2025

Tamara DeSchepper

I can't believe that you are seriously thinking of bringing censorship to public libraries. I thought that Republicans were the freedom party who champion freedom of speech, freedom of ideas and freedom from censorship. If some parents have a problem with the books that their children are accessing at the public library (a library for ALL Iowans, not just those inattentive Iowans with children), then they should be more involved parents and pay better attention to what their children are doing. Why should other Iowans have their rights trampled on because some parents can't be bothered to pay attention to what their children are doing?

02-25-2025

Lori Reutter [Leonard A Good Community Library]

PLEASE vote NO on SF235. Libraries are for everyone and should remain so. SF235 would in essence make every public library a "Children's library."Respectfully,Lori ReutterDirector, Leonard A. Good Community LibraryOgden, IA

02-25-2025

Judi Tesar

Please reconsider all the legalities of this legislation. Surely censorship should begin with the parents in their home with their own children. No one has the right to decide what is objectionable for other people's children. Where will this stop? We do not need more laws we need more morals and compassion.

02-25-2025

Mary Hoffman [AAUW]

Please oppose bills which want to restrictcontent of public libraries. They would adverselyaffect wonderful small town resources thoseoverworked librarians and likely cause money tobe wasted on legal battles. This is yet another area that the government needs to keep it's noseout of.

02-25-2025

Marilyn Herrick

Libraries should continue to provide books that appeal to all readers. If it's something you don't think you should read, don't read it. But don't tell me what I should read. If parents are concerned about what their children are reading or seeing, they need to monitor the social media sites they are accessing. Social media tells kids how to make a ghost gun, how to commit suicide, how to body shame a girl friend who you convinced to post naked then posting the photos on social media, accessing pornography, etc. Thank you.

02-25-2025

Devin Gilbertson [Myself, and all normal adults ]

Do you Republicans have nothing else better to do with your time than to waste of meaningless bills such as this? You could be working to actually benefit Iowans, protecting children, providing adequate healthcare and meals, but no. You want to beat your chests and pass bills on things you dont like or agree with. This is absolutely pathetic

02-25-2025

Maryna Nading [Luther College]

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed bill "for an act relating to obscenity exemptions for public libraries and educational institutions." As an educator, I believe in the ability of adults to think critically and make informed decisions about what they want to read without anyone's permission. Educational institutions and libraries must retain the power of academic freedom. Frivolous lawsuits is a drain on public resources. Commons, like public libraries, must remain a space free of prosecution and surveillance. If the US is a democratic country, this is a must. I am a naturalized American citizen, and I grew up in the Soviet Union. Even in the Soviet society, this degree of control over what citizens read or thought did not exist. Adopting a bill such as this one would be dangerously out of touch with times and democratic values.

02-26-2025

Kris Johnson

Public libraries are one of the cornerstones of an informed, educated, and thriving society. They are carefully curated by highly educated professionalstrained librarianswho ensure collections meet the diverse educational, cultural, and literary needs of their communities.The claim that libraries provide "obscene materials" is misleading and ignores the rigorous standards already in place. Public libraries do not stock pornography; they provide books and materials that educate, inspire, and challenge readers of all ages. The repeal of Iowa Code section 728.7 would open the door to unnecessary censorship, threatening access to literature, history, and ideas that shape a wellrounded, educated society.Limiting what can be included in a librarys collection does not protect childrenit restricts learning for everyone. Communities rely on libraries to foster curiosity, literacy, and lifelong learning. Attempts to censor materials based on subjective objections undermine the freedom to read and think critically.Rather than removing access to books, we should trust the expertise of librarians and continue supporting public libraries as essential institutions for democracy, education, and the public good.

02-26-2025

Holly Anderson

This bill shouldn't even be up for debate. Taking away knowledge and book choice freedom is not helpful to anyone. We don't need to dumb down anyone by removing books. This is not a safety tactic, it's a diversion from actual problems. We don't need you taking away freedoms, we need representatives who fight to uphold our freedoms. Vote no to the atrocious and harmful bill.

02-26-2025

Pat Johnson

Senator Klimesh,As one of your constituents, I urge you oppose SF235. I believe, and I hope you do also, that we have very fine public libraries in Iowa and that our librarians are dedicated professionals who follow professional standards in purchasing library materials, in making appropriate decisions about shelving materials, and in checking out materials to ageappropriate users.It is inappropriate, unnecessary, and damaging to interfere with the careful work of professional librarians.It would open up libraries to excessive lawsuits, and end up costing taxpayers significant money to cover legal fees.I hope you will oppose SF235 and leave our public libraries alone to continue providing their important public service.Thank you,Pat Johnson

02-27-2025

Karen Martin-Schramm

I urge you to oppose HF 558, which would allow ANYONE to bring lawsuits against the library and the city over materials they object to, regardless of merit. This would lead to costly legal fees which our library, city and taxpayers can't afford. Further, the passage of this bill would likely result in Decorah Public Library becoming a childrens library and would require them to remove all materials for adults from the building. What kind of thriving, healthy society doesn't have a library for adults?

02-27-2025

Linda Mentzer

As a representative of the people, vote no on any type of legislation that censors and/or bans books. This democracy is built on freedom and we are being stripped of ours. Banning books is a huge part of destroying a democracy.

03-04-2025

Mikah Jaschke

Im writing to ask you to oppose Senate File 347, a bill that would seriously harm our public libraries and the communities they serve. If this passes, it would put unfair restrictions on libraries, making it harder for people of all ages to access the resources they need.Whats particularly concerning is the government overreach in this bill. Our libraries are largely funded and managed at the local level, by communities who know their needs best. Its absurd to think that these locally funded institutions would have to pay hefty fees to the state for simply doing their jobproviding access to information and resources. This kind of topdown control undermines the principles of local governance and fiscal responsibility that I know you value.On top of that, the bills vague rules about removing materials would open the door to censorship based on personal or political opinions. That goes against everything libraries stand forfree and open access to information for everyone. And its going to hurt marginalized communities the most, since they often rely on libraries for resources they cant get elsewhere.Libraries are a cornerstone of our communities and our democracy. Theyre not just buildingstheyre lifelines for so many people. Please oppose SF 347 and stand up for policies that protect and strengthen our libraries instead.