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 2177

A bill for an act relating to policies and protection measures a library provider or third party contracting with a library provider must take if the library provider or third party offers digital library services.

Agenda

Subcommittee members: Alons-CH, Bennett, Sires

Date: Thursday, February 12, 2026

Time: 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM

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.

02-10-2026

Jane Nesmith

Vote NO on this bill. It is posturing, and a waste of time and money. Libraries ALREADY do NOT provide access to child pornography, hardcore pornography, or obscene material. There is no need for this bill. If enacted, the bill would force libraries to pay for wasteful filtering or blocking technology. What a waste of money!If parents are concerned about what their children are readingand that is clearly not pornography from a library as that does not existthey need to deal with it themselves.

02-10-2026

Ann Klingensmith

Vote NO. This is an absolute waste of tax payers money. Libraries already have policies and procedures in place to keep materials unavailable to minors. It also restricts the rights of parents and guardians. This is just another "culture" war inflammatory bill.

02-10-2026

Sam Helmick

SF 2177 creates an unfunded mandate that shifts costs to local communities while limiting parental choice over how their children access information. It narrowly targets library platforms but ignores where most screen time actually occurssocial media and personal devices. If were serious about protecting kids, we need comprehensive digital literacy and familycentered solutions, not onesizefitsall restrictions on libraries.Iowans deserve well grounded solutions for our contemporary concerns regarding online safety. Our elected officials could focus their platforms and energies to needful spaces like ISPs and social media guidelines/regulations. Why aren't they?

02-10-2026

Dustin Riggins

vote no on this bill. Let parents parent children and stop attacking our libraries. This putting strain on our libraries and cities for an issue of kids doing things that if they were doing would surely be on their mobile devices and not at the library

02-10-2026

Emma Stoffer

A newspaper archive clearly falls within SF 2177's definition of a "digital library service" as they are digital content provided through librarylicensed platforms and used for research, learning, and information retrievalthe very functions the definition highlights. They operate just like the databases and online research tools explicitly named in this bill. Because these archives contain news reporting, historical images, and publicaffairs content, they would be subject to the same filtering and compliance requirements, increasing the risk of overblocking lawful information and restricting access to essential civic resources. Iowa legislators recently overhauled our state's education standards concerning civics and social studies. This bill works to undo those efforts and creates unnecessary obstacles and barriers for students and teachers looking to meet those standards.

02-10-2026

Michelle Andersen

Making it more difficult to access digital library services while not even addressing that children and teens spend more time on electronic sources that are not provided by libraries is putting the cart before the horse. Libraries strive to make information easily accessible to all community members no matter their age. Parents are responsible for monitoring their child's access to digital informationwhether that comes from a library or not. Vote no.

02-10-2026

Robert Critser

SF 2177 is an example of government overreach. The people of Iowa can clearly see its true purpose is to undermine the autonomy of libraries, and the value of the services libraries offer. It is unfounded and unfunded and will unfortunately put an unnecessary burden on libraries and local governments. Let libraries govern themselves. It was never an issue until someone decided to create what I believe is a madeup problem. Thank you for voting NO

02-10-2026

Jillian Aschliman

Vote NO on SF2177. In addition to the comments already submitted, this bill is so restrictive, I can't imagine ANY 3rd party agreeing to these terms to avoid any liability on their end. 3rd party vendors and utilities would just drop contracts. This would likely kill ALL access to Internet and digital resources for everyone across the state. If parents are truly concerned about what their children are reading online or in books at the library is to BE A PARENT and MONITOR the things their children are accessing.

02-10-2026

Sara Parris

Libraries should be access points, not put in the position of restricting knowledge. Focus on something that Iowans actually want, like clean water or fully funded public schools. Such a bill would severely limit internet access to your rural constituents, amongst a slew of other issues. VOTE NO.

02-10-2026

Tina Hertel

I urge you to vote no on SF 2177.Parents, not the government, are best positioned to guide their childrens reading and digital decisions. This bill diminishes parental autonomy and substitutes government mandates for the open dialogue, trust, and guidance that should occur within families regarding childrens access to information.It also places significant burdens on libraries by requiring them to impose costly and imperfect filtering mandates not only on themselves but on thirdparty digital vendors. Filtering systems may block legitimate educational, health, and research materials, thereby restricting lawful information and limiting access over perceived harm.Iowas motto is Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain. Our state also proudly promotes Freedom to Flourish. SF 2177 moves us away from those principles by narrowing access and weakening local control.Please protect parental rights, local control, access, and intellectual freedom by voting no.

02-10-2026

Dorothy Knight

This is an absolute waste of time and extreme overreach by the government. The state doesnt need to step in and try to parent our kids by censoring or restricting access to information, we as parents are more than capable of determining what is and is not appropriate for our kids, and having hard conversations when necessary.

02-11-2026

Rick Phillips

Pass SF2177. In thus day and age there is no such thing as too much protection for minors. Children are under attack and innocence being robbed by careless and heartless adults posing as providers, librarians or educators. I can only imagine that most adults wanting to maintain child sexual abuse and grooming standards using technology are somehow tied into the Jeffery Epstein pedophile ring. Pass SF2177 to protect innocent children. Their safety is the only legitimate consideration here.

02-11-2026

Megan Kiernan

Vote NO! Public libraries are important forums for public information and access. Implementing mandatory blocking not only undermines that role and enforces automated censorship over professional judgment, but also risks overblocking of materials and information that are important due to the vague language of this bill. Libraries already have systems and policies in place for library confidentiality principles and protection of Iowa's readers (specifically minors) seeking sensitive information. This would also negatively impact libraries on a financial front, especially our rural libraries (which rely on statewide vendors and consortia), by imposing new and expensive technological blocking systems, agebased access controls, renegotiating contracts with thirdparty vendors that are already in place, and increasing staff training.Censorship has no place in our libraries, or in Iowa. Libraries are meant to be a safe, public space, and should remain as such.

02-11-2026

Lisa Martincik

Vote NO on this very odd, very unrealistic bill. As abundantly noted elsewhere, it actually disempowers parents and guardians while simultaneously disrespecting them. It either completely misunderstands the abilities and propensities of vendors, or purposely intends the outcome to be a chilling effect on libraries and a massive reduction of educational and informational resources available to the public: no vendor can agree to these strictures and its arguably not their place to do so. I also think any danger this bill aims to address is vastly overrated and improbable, as extant cases of toddlers and adolescents accessing hardcore pornography would be so risable that they would have been blasted all over social media and news sources such that they were impossible to avoid.Please, we want healthy land and healthy people, not illconsidered bills wasting our time and money.

02-11-2026

Jeff Collins

Please vote NO on this bill. I am not aware of any private organizations setting policy for our public libraries, and this legislation feels like a solution in search of a problem. As a homeschool parent, I want decisions that affect my children to remain under my control. What about parental rights? Vote NO.

02-11-2026

Erin Horst

Whats the point of this? Libraries dont have these anyway. It may have been helpful to look at the actual digital collections of Iowa libraries before moving forward with this. Digital books are expensive for libraries, so that means youll find things like popular bestsellers and mystery series. Scary stuff, apparently.

02-11-2026

Julia Andrews

VOTE NO on this bill. Libraries boards and trained librarians already regulate materials to keep pornography and inappropriate materials out of the hands of children. This bill adds costs to libraries, takes local control out of our towns' hands, and adds an extra burden to our already overworked librarians. It is not needed. We don't need 3rd party surveillance in our local libraries.

02-11-2026

Katie Giorgio

I urge you to vote no on this bill. Our librarians are not potential criminals. The beauty of a public library is that each patron has their own choice in which materials they access. Please vote no and stop over legislating our libraries.

02-11-2026

Charity Tyler

This is a bad bill. Please vote NO! Libraries do not provide access to pornography or obscene materials. This is unnecessary and will be an undue burden to libraries and their staff in monitoring the third party vendors and will be an intrusion on Iowa's privacy laws to monitor minors' access...a responsibility that is the parent and caregiver's. Vote NO!

02-11-2026

Patricia Akers

I'm urgently asking that you vote no on this bill. It is not needed and will severely restrict school districts, especially rural ones, regarding cooperation with public libraries for resources. I do not believe our schools would knowingly place inappropriate materials in the hands of students. Parents are free to review what their children bring home and if they do not find it appropriate in their view return it to the school. You are wasting time debating this.

02-11-2026

Heather Younker

Libraries should be access points, not put in the position of restricting knowledge. Libraries dont actually allow access to those things listed in the bill. Focus on something that Iowans actually want like fully funded public schools. Such a bill would limit internet access to your rural constituents, among other things. VOTE NO.

02-11-2026

Eleanor Ball

Vote NO on SF 2177.Automated filtering technology cannot accurately distinguish between illegal content and legal educational, medical, or artistic material. SF 2177 would require libraries to block broad categories of lawful, constitutionally protected content, leading to inevitable overblocking of educational, health, artistic, and informational materials. The phrasing of "restricted content" in the bill is too broad. Would use of a controlled substance include news articles about local arrest in newspaper databases or information about prescription medications?

02-11-2026

Jon Hobbs

This bill is shortsighted because it could block much more than just harmful content. Requiring libraries to filter content would also restrict access to legitimate health information, academic research, and educational resources. This bill also creates unnecessary technical and financial burdens for libraries. Finally, this bill does not effectively prevent minors form accessing harmful content but would limit access for students who do not have the resources and rely on libraries for schoolwork and research. Simply, this bill reduces educational access without solving the problem it aims to address.

02-11-2026

Sarah Voels

Vote NO on SF2177. This creates unprofessional oversight by the Iowa legislature while passing on a financial burden to communities tasked with navigating such contracts. Further it disregards the reality that such filters are ineffective and incomplete. Libraries do not invest in the sort of content this bill suggests exists further adding an unnecessary barrier to accessing information for young people conducting research and participating in the growth of intellect in the state. I had the opportunity to speak with Sen Salmon the day this was introduced and I am thankful for her time but she also openly stated that she does not understand how these databases work and declined any effort to be educated on it. How can our elected officials, in good conscience, legislate things they do not understand?

02-11-2026

Gina Schlesselman-Tarango

Vote NO. Public libraries already have internet filtering requirements (CIPA). Forcing libraries to block large swaths of constitutionallyprotected content would prevent patrons from accessing valuable health materials, for example.

02-11-2026

Sarah Voels

Please oppose this bill. It creates an unnecessary layer of government oversight on a nonissue that only adds to the burdens of libraries and their communities. Such filters simply do not work, certainly not the way this bill suggests. This adds wasteful time to libraries and their communities while hindering student access to information. This bill also neglects the reality that if parents are engaging with their child about their research, reading, etc. then there is no need to even consider such legislation. To propose it suggests that legislators do not trust parents to be attentive. Further, I had the opportunity to speak with Sen. Salmon the day this was proposed. I am thankful she took the time to discuss matters with me but she also openly stated that she did not understand how such databases work and opposed opportunities to learn. How can our elected officials propose legislation for things they do not understand?

02-11-2026

Wendy Doyel

Vote no to this bill. Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, and staff procedures for handling illegal online content. This is required of all public libraries, make this bill rather redundant. Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal.

02-11-2026

Abigail Sitzmann

Vote NO on this! Child pornography and child access to pornography is already illegal. Implementing more restrictions, especially this broadly, will result in cutting access to important informational materials and likely result in cutting entire popular services.

02-11-2026

Alexis Hardiman

Vote NO on this bill! Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. This is required of all public libraries by In Service to Iowa Public Library Standards. Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal. Automated filtering technology cannot accurately distinguish between illegal content and legal educational, medical, or artistic material. SF 2177 would require libraries to block broad categories of lawful, constitutionally protected content, leading to inevitable overblocking of educational, health, artistic, and informational materials. These restrictions would negatively impact adult users whose information requests would be caught up in filters.This would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings.

02-11-2026

Elizabeth Estling

Vote no. This is ridiculous. Libraries do not have obscene materials. Age levels are a suggestion should kids not use library books for a research project on ancient Egypt? Should an advanced reading 1st grader not check out babysitters club? This is an attempt to create a problem that does not exist with the actual goal of making libraries worse for everyone.

02-11-2026

Angie Wessel

Vote NO for this bill. It's another form of book banning violates the "Freedom to Read". Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. This would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings. Restricted content is an overbroad statement.

02-11-2026

J Basye

Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal. Automated filtering technology cannot accurately distinguish between illegal content and legal educational, medical, or artistic material. SF 2177 would require libraries to block broad categories of lawful, constitutionally protected content, leading to inevitable overblocking of educational, health, artistic, and informational materials. This would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings. Please vote no on SF2177.

02-11-2026

Chris Stoner

Vote no on this bill. This is an unfunded mandate for already stretched thin library staff, which will overly restrict access to information that has educational and public health value and does nothing to address the root concern that motivates bills like this in the first place. If kids are going to stumble across obscene digital material, it's going to be on any of the many internetenabled devices they encounter every day not by digging through informational library databases.

02-11-2026

J Basye

Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal. Automated filtering technology cannot accurately distinguish between illegal content and legal educational, medical, or artistic material. SF 2177 would require libraries to block broad categories of lawful, constitutionally protected content, leading to inevitable overblocking of educational, health, artistic, and informational materials. This would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings. Please vote no on SF2177.

02-11-2026

Lisa Johnson

VOTE NO. Libraries already work hard to provide a safe digital environment. Filtering information reduces access for students, teachers, and families who rely on digital library tools for homework and research. Libraries in Iowa already prohibit access to child pornography, hardcore pornography, and obscene materials. These are illegal everywhere, including libraries, who do not provide them. The bill appears to address a problem that does not exist. Finally, this bill places responsibility on libraries for issues unrelated to library services. If minors encounter inappropriate material online, it typically happens through personal devices or social media, not curated library platforms. Families are best positioned to guide their childrens digital choices. Libraries already support that by providing safe spaces and professional oversight.

02-11-2026

Victoria Brander

Vote NO on this bill. This is a total waste of time and tax money. Libraries DO NOT provide access to pornography to minors. Anything legally ruled obscene is not purchased nor distributed by libraries. This is a step towards censoring, and the use of "restricted content" seems intentionally vague so as to target LGBTQ and other minorities. While the idea sounds nice, this is not a needed bill and will only lead to further targeting of libraries and librarians. It is the duty of the parents to be overseeing what their children have access too.

02-11-2026

Rachel Mckenny

This is a waste of taxpayer time and money. Leave libraries out of your legislative session until you can understand the good work, day in and day out, that librarians do on tight budgets, in sometimes small communities. Digital library services are some of the only ways that people can access materials, and limiting it in any way will greatly disservice the taxpayers who pay for this.

02-11-2026

Anne Tews

Vote NO on this bill!We do NOT allow minors to access pornography.If parents or grandparents are concerned with what their youth access then they should accompany the minor to the library to communicate with them why they do not want the youth to access a particular resource. Parents/guardians should decide ONLY for their child/grandchild what can be read, viewed, etc. They should not have the right to dictate what other patrons can access.Libraries already have reconsideration policies on file which require the person to read the book word for word, specify exactly which pages and lines they have an issue with and why. Librarians have 30 days to respond and if the person does not like the answer then they can follow up with the library board. It's not that difficult!It's a waste of taxpayer dollars and your time to pursue limitations to libraries. There are far more urgent issues which need to be fixed (i.e. the economy, reduced hospitals and doctors in rural Iowa, etc)!

02-11-2026

Morgan Turner

Please vote no. This approach is overreaching, and would block much more than obscene materials alone while accruing costs for public libraries that are unsustainable. Please focus on the harmful platforms themselves, not on public libraries who offer free wifi for homework, job applications, education, coding, and more.

02-11-2026

Donetta Stewart

Vote NO on SF 2117! Libraries already have policies and procedures in place to protect minors from illegal content such as child pornography, and minor access to pornography is already illegal. This bill would incentivize libraries to restrict minor access entirely to digital services such as the popular Libby eBook and audiobook offering.

02-11-2026

Amanda Sand

Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. This is already required of all public libraries through State Library Standards. Libraries also do not control their third party vendors, and risk being forced to end popular research resources and collections. The criteria is over broad and will restrict access to lawful content for library users of all ages.

02-11-2026

Brett Cloyd

SF 2177 Digital Library Services Filtering. I encourage the committee to vote no on this bill. A few highlights: Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. This would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings. Restricted content is over broad. I worry thish legislation would create administrative burden for libraries, and require extensive adjudication through the judicial branch, while limiting children's access to important and useful information. Meanwhile, private cell phones do not require safety policies or filtering requirements, and research has demonstrated meaningful harms.Thank you for your consideration.

02-11-2026

Megan Klein-Hewett

Vote no on this bill. It would only serve to restrict everyones access to vital digital resources, and hamstring public libraries in their ability to offer needed resources to their communities. Libraries already filter internet access through CIPA and local policy application.

02-11-2026

E. Pearson

Vote no. This is a waste of time and money. Libraries already have policies in place for these things. This is overly broad and will limit access beyond the intentions of this bill. This would limit quality resources to all those that use the library.

02-11-2026

Stacy Volmer

I strongly oppose SF 2177. Protecting children from illegal content is already the law, and libraries take that responsibility seriously. This bill goes far beyond existing safeguards by imposing vague, overly broad requirements that will force libraries and digital providers to overfilter content out of fear of penalties and public reporting.By tying severe financial punishments and Attorney General investigations to any alleged lapse, SF 2177 will chill access to constitutionally protected information, restrict legitimate research materials, and make it harder for students to access digital learning tools. The broad inclusion of materials relating to the use of a controlled substance could block health, prevention, and recovery resources young people rely on.Libraries exist to provide access to knowledge. This bill replaces professional standards with political overreach and threatens access to critical educational resources. I urge you to vote no on SF 2177.

02-11-2026

Samantha Ferm

if libraries already do not offer something as ridiculous as porn...then WHY are you wasting taxpayer money on this? can you find a better cause? like why iowa is last in the country for economic growth and development? or why we have the highest cancer rates???

02-11-2026

Barbara Phillips

Local libraries are closest to the families they serve and should retain discretion over digital service policies. SF 2177 transfers that authority to the state and outside contractors instead of respecting community choice.

02-11-2026

Erin Coughlin

Vote no! Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. This is required of all public libraries by In Service to Iowa Public Library Standards. Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal. Automated filtering technology cannot accurately distinguish between illegal content and legal educational, medical, or artistic material. SF 2177 would require libraries to block broad categories of lawful, constitutionally protected content, leading to inevitable overblocking of educational, health, artistic, and informational materials. These restrictions would negatively impact adult users whose information requests would be caught up in filters.

02-11-2026

Jennifer Delperdang

I oppose SF2177. This bill creates an unnecessary burden on municipalities and taxpayers. The focus of this bill is yet another attack on libraries demanding that they block, prohibit, and prevent access to resources that political officers deem inappropriate. This is censorship. So much talk about parental rights but there is also parental responsibility. It should not be the role or the responsibility of the Library to block, prohibit or prevent what citizens have access to. Do not pass this bill.

02-11-2026

Anna Knief

I do not want my tax dollars going toward the redundant and unnecessary filtering that libraries already provide. Please vote no on this bill. There are so many larger issues Iowa legislators should be addressing than harassing libraries.

02-11-2026

Kerry Vande Kieft

Vote no on this bill. Have you any idea the cost this would take to implement? The oversight and maintenance this would take to upkeep? Its also completely unnecessary. Libraries already are required to filter illegal content.

02-11-2026

Martha McClurg

I oppose SF 2177. Libraries already have rules and structures in place to protect minors and adults from illegal and harmful content. A bill such as SF would result in unintended consequences such as loss of popular library services such as ebooks, audiobooks, video streaming, etc. Particularly alarming to me as a health care provider, materials on the human body, medication information, and the like would likely be blocked and unavailable to me due to SF 2177 requiring libraries to overly block entire material categories. Please vote no to this bill!

02-11-2026

Sondy Kaska

Please vote NO on SF 2177. Libraries already do NOT provide access to child pornography and obscene materials, etc. This is overly burdensome, overly broad, requires financing that only wastes money, and doesn't address the real issues, like putting safeguards on AI. Let parents decide what their kids should have access to!!!

02-11-2026

Kolleen Hosford

Simply, vote no on SF 2177. There are others here who have more than covered my thoughts, especially Dustin Riggin. Parents, take responsibility, don't expect librarians to do your parenting, or worse, let the state do it for you!

02-11-2026

Megan Murphy Salyer

Vote no. Have you been to a library lately? One visit should be enough to realize that this bill is completely unnecessary. Libraries do not provide access to child pornography, hardcore pornography, or obscene material.

02-11-2026

Roslin Thompson

Please vote no to this bill. Libraries already have policies and procedures in place to ensure illegal materials or content is not accessed at the library. We already adhere to CIPA laws and adding more filters will add a financial burden to small and rural libraries. This is more government overreach where it is not needed.

02-11-2026

Matthieu Biger

Vote no, please! The fact that libraries do not provide access to child pornography, hardcore pornography, or obscene materia should be enough for a reasonable, wellintentioned party to vote against this at its inception.

02-11-2026

Brittney Lerner

Vote no! Let parents be parents. We should be taking responsibility for our own childrens media content. This bill is a waste of time, money and could block educational content. Most small libraries would not be able to handle the financial burden this bill will inflict when there is already filters that can be used on platforms like Libby. You should be more concerned about social media and internet browsers than books.

02-11-2026

Jade Hart

Vote NO. Libraries DO NOT provide access to ANY pornography or obscene materials. That's why we have librarians who are trained in selecting ageappropriate materials for kids. This bill would place undue financial burdens and oversights on libraries and is NOT NEEDED.

02-11-2026

Cecilia Roudabush

If I am the parent of a child, it is my duty and obligation to monitor my child's choices, actions and participation. It is NOT my duty to impose my beliefs on anyone else's child. Nor is it my duty to impose my values and standards on a public organization. I believe in the training of local librarians and their boards of trustees, all members of our communities.Decide the reading material for your child, but let everyone else monitor, guide, support or disagree with their own child's choices (hopefully involving discussion and guidance on understanding the benefits or consequences of their choices rather than complete banning of reading material). I never regretted talking through something with my children, as my parents did for me!

02-11-2026

Rebecca Roberts

Vote NO on SF 2177. This bill is problematic for many reasons including that: filtering making it hard to access information about topics like legal medication, library policies already forbidding access to porn on library machines, and many youth have access to smart phones (which aren't covered by this bill and could be used to access potentially questionable material).

02-11-2026

Jan Netolick

What happened to the party that used to preach individual responsibility and small government? This bill is another example of Republicans attempting to legislate morality. I see the comments submitted to your members are overwhelmingly against this measure, and I add my vehement opposition here. Do our voices count? VOTE NO.

02-11-2026

Sonia Ettinger [Not Employed]

Vote No on HF 2270this is a foolish bill that attempts to control students in particular. So much for freedom. It is useless to try to control people's thoughts.. what matters is that people respect each other It is not the business of government to prevent people from reading.!!!

02-12-2026

Elsabeth Hepworth

Vote no on SF 2177. In accordance with state and federal law, content and conduct policies already exist that explicitly prohibit illegal acts like this from happening. Furthermore, monitoring a child's internet use is and should always be the right and responsibility of the parent or guardian, not library staff.

02-12-2026

Kathryn Fink

Vote no on HF2177this bill is over broad. Automated filtering systems arent super sophisticated and cant distinguish between illegal content and legal information and would require libraries to block broad categories of materials, including education, health, art, and would require them to no longer subscribe to popular services like Libbyor no longer allow children to access them. Libraries already have policies for Internet safety, as well as procedures for handling illegal contentthis is required in Iowa library standards.

02-12-2026

Holly Allen

Vote No on SF 2177. This is yet another bill in search of a problem that doesn't exist and another effort by the overreaching state to limit the autonomy of our local public libraries. Our library has free public wifi as a digital service to our community, many of whom are older and do not have internet access at home. How is the library supposed to be held responsible for what people do on their personal devices as they can connect even outside the library building? Stop wasting taxpayer money.

02-12-2026

Sadye Scott-Hainchek

I oppose SF 2177. As with other library legislation, it runs counter to the GOP talking point of "small government" by introducing oppressive regulations; the intention is clearly to quash free access to information and education, not to protect any individual (beyond a scared conservative, that is). Thirdparty library digital services are already vetted by trained professionals and do not contain obscene material or pornography. And again, Iowa's library systems are staffed by trained professionals who can, in fact, assess the quality of such thirdparty services. It seems to me that legislators do not actually want parents to choose for their own children, because they're fixated on restricting information for everyone, even the children of parents who trust professional educators. This is not parental choice. This is undercover statemandated censorship.

02-12-2026

Heather Hansen

This bill is ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money. Libraries already have protections in place. Stop acting like you are introducing bills to safeguard children when you are actually doing nothing of the sort.Libraries already do this. Vote NO on this bill.

02-12-2026

tara snow

Vote NO on 2177This is a waste of time and money. Child pornography and child access to pornography is already illegal libraries already have protections in place. I appreciate the "protect children" and "antichild porno" vibe but we are all good here at our library, that energy could be used in DC right now.

02-12-2026

Mary Cooper

PLEASE Vote NO on SF2177 Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal. Automated filtering technology cannot accurately distinguish between illegal content and legal educational, medical, or artistic material. SF 2177 would require libraries to block broad categories of lawful, constitutionally protected content, leading to inevitable overblocking of educational, health, artistic, and informational materials. This would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings.

02-12-2026

Angela West

Vote NO. Public libraries already have internet filtering requirements (CIPA). Forcing libraries to block large amounts of constitutionally protected content would prevent patrons from accessing valuable health materials and increase operational costs for libraries. Stop with the government overreach!

02-12-2026

Dennis Goodyear

I urge you to vote NO on SF 2177. Requiring libraries to install thirdparty filtering software on computers ignores the fact that there are no filtering programs that only filter the bad stuff but also don't filter out legitimate information for study and educational purposes. Also, I question the definitions involved; who is going to determine what is labeled "obscene"?

02-12-2026

Amy Stevenson

Say NO to SF 2177.Our libraries ensure that Iowans have access to high quality digital content that provides credible information. This proposal interferes with our access to historical archives, scientific databases, peerreviewed journals, and scholarly collections.This doesn't protect Iowans from obscenity. This restricts our access to information.

02-12-2026

Natalie Hall

Oppose SF 2177. Redundant legislation. Do your job and pass some bills that actually help Iowans. This is wasting our tax payer dollars. We love our public libraries and they already do a fantastic job of providing services & materials in a safe way. Stop peering over their shoulders, you have more important work to do. Vote no of SF2177 and do not advance this bill.

02-12-2026

Andy Donovan

Vote NO on SF 2177. Libraries are a MODEL of successful content control, patron safeguards, and local governance. This is the result of an ongoing process of professional training, assessment, and deliberation, centered around communityoriented stewardship. Moreover, through professional associations and communities of practice, libraries across the country share knowledge about what works and what doesn't (with respect to technological changes and content controls). And they do this extraordinarily efficiently (i.e. With every $1 spent on libraries, communities get $5 worth of quality materials). Instead of imposing upon libraries with 'topdown' costly requirements, as this bill does, we should support (remunerate) and celebrate (reward) the existing process. It works.

02-12-2026

Erika Binegar

Please vote NO on this bill. Public libraries already implement internet safety policies, filtering requirements under CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act), and staff procedures for handling illegal content. This is required of all public libraries by In Service to Iowa Public Library Standards. Illegal content such as child pornography and minor access to pornography is already illegal. This bill would incentivize libraries to restrict minors access entirely, limit digital services, or cancel popular ebook, audiobook, and WiFi offerings. It would likely mean the loss of access to popular ebook and audiobook services (Libby) and standard research databases (EBSCOhost), removing education and professional resource access for library users.

02-12-2026

Sharon Moss

Children who need libraries the most are those who don't have internet access at home. Why is the state trying to harm local libraries as communities' budgets are stretched thin in this economy? Why doesn't the government focus on what children actually need, like clean water to drink and enough food to eat?

02-12-2026

Steve Potash [OverDrive]

I am writing on behalf of OverDrive to formally express our opposition to Iowa Senate File 2177, as outlined in my submitted testimony to the Iowa Senate Technology Committee. This bill is based on a misunderstanding of how digital library services operate. OverDrive is proud to provide Iowa libraries and schools with access only to lawfully published materials licensed directly from publishers, and we do not distribute obscene or illegal content. SF 2177 would impose burdensome filtering and monitoring requirements, create operational and potential constitutional concerns, and risk restricting access to lawful educational works through vague standards. Please refer to my submitted testimony for a full explanation of our position.

Attachment

02-12-2026

Marc Wallace

This is not thoughtful childprotection policy. It is regulatory overreach that burdens local institutions with costly compliance requirements, shifts liability onto staff for circumstances beyond their reasonable control, and risks restricting lawful, constitutionally protected information. Libraries already operate under established collection policies and reconsideration procedures. Undermining those systems does not strengthen families it weakens a vital community institution.I respectfully ask that you vote NO on SF 2177.

Attachment