logo
Lawmakers' obscenity purge focuses on wrong targets

Lawmakers' obscenity purge focuses on wrong targets

Yahoo28-02-2025
Iowa lawmakers are trying to scrub obscenity from public libraries. (Stock photo by Daniel de)
The Iowa Legislature wants to keep sexually explicit materials out of the hands of minors. That seems like a reasonable enough goal, but lawmakers are going about it wrong.
A bill moving through the Iowa House, House File 274, wants to scrub any potential obscenity from public schools and libraries.
As state law stands, public schools, libraries, and educational programs are allowed to use 'appropriate material for educational purposes' without being subject to obscenity penalties.
This doesn't mean teachers can screen pornographic films or hand out smutty romance novels. It means health teachers can show diagrams of the human reproductive systems. It means English teachers use literature that deals with themes of the challenges of adolescence such as the onset of the menstrual cycle described in Judy Blume's classic 'Are You There, God? It's Me Margaret.'
Lawmakers say this isn't their target. They want to get rid of stuff that panders to prurient interest, basically sexual material designed to arouse rather than inform. Reasonable people can agree that's a good idea.
But for a Republican-controlled legislature, the targeting of schools and library is incredibly poor marksmanship. The idea that minor children are using schools and libraries as even a tertiary source for obscene material is laughable.
I'm in my third year of teaching middle school English. This was the first year anyone asked me how to check out a book from the school library.
I've had to stop more students from writing curse words and drawing crude depictions of male genitalia in books than I've ever had to ask a kid to stop reading books other than the required text.
I had one student who tried to read manga comics instead of the required text. It pained me some to make the student put it away. I hid comic books between the covers of my social studies textbooks in Mrs. Mathis' class at Winterset Middle School. It looked like I was studying the difference between temperate and tropical forests, but I was really reading Spider-Man latest battle with the Hobgoblin.
A thousand years ago, back in the 1980s, a kid had to work to get their hands on materials pandering to the prurient interest. You had to have a buddy whose dad wasn't careful with where he left the Playboy magazines or a friend whose mom got the Victoria's Secret catalog.
Even then I didn't go to the library to find pictures of naked women. I went to the library to play 'Oregon Trail' game on the Apple IIe and check out books on the history of newspaper comics. Yeah, I was always this big of a nerd.
Much has changed since the 1900s. Kids who want to see obscene materials don't go to school or library to get it. They just pull their internet-connect smartphone out of their pocket.
Lawmakers move bills aimed at stopping minors' access to obscene materials, porn
As much as one-fifth of internet searches on mobile devices are for adult content, according to a Columbia University study. And that data only related to adults ages 18-35. Common Sense Media reports as many as 60% of teenagers come across the adult material while using their smartphones without actively searching for it.
Other students say as many as 20% of older adolescents deliberately access adult websites on their smartphones. I'd wager, at least as it comes to boys, about 79% of the rest are lying.
The only thing HF 274 will do is make it easier for the most puritanical members of communities to tie up teachers and librarians in court procedures and potentially get them slapped with fines.
Instead of picking on underfunded schools and libraries and underpaid teachers and librarians, the members of the Iowa General Assembly should think bigger. Go full China. Shut down the internet in Iowa. Replace it with a service that tells the people what a good job the government is doing protecting them from all the evils of the world.
I am not what anyone who knows me would describe as an optimist, but I choose to believe that's not what lawmakers really want to do.
The solution lies with families taking a more active — and if so desired — stricter approach to what media their kids consume, what they access on their technology, and how many hours a day they're on those devices.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would require age verification for websites that post pornographic and obscene materials. That might help, but our school has a robust system to block many websites. The students quickly master the way around them. Again, the burden falls less on government and more on families and caretakers to set standards and limit device time.
This isn't a solution for government. One would think self-described small-government Republicans would be the first to recognize that.
But it's my experience that politicians of any stripe don't truly want smaller government. They just want to use power of government to push around people who have different ideas than theirs.
This column first appeared on Daniel P. Finney's blog, The Paragraph Stacker on Substack. It is republished here through the Iowa Writers' Collaborative.
Editor's note: Please consider subscribing to the collaborative and its member writers to support their work.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Over half of Americans say ‘big, beautiful bill' going to raise health care costs: Poll
Over half of Americans say ‘big, beautiful bill' going to raise health care costs: Poll

The Hill

time19 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Over half of Americans say ‘big, beautiful bill' going to raise health care costs: Poll

More than half of Americans — 57 percent — said in a new survey that they think the GOP's sweeping package extending tax cuts and slashing welfare services will increase their health-care costs. Thirteen percent in the CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday said that the 'big, beautiful bill' will lower their health-care costs and 33 percent said there will be no impact. While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet released a final estimate for the measure as enacted, it projected that 16 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 under an earlier House-passed version of the bill. This analysis has been the basis for many Democrats' messaging around health care, and health-care advocates have still warned that the final version could be devastating to communities relying on Medicaid. The sprawling package permanently extends many of the temporary tax cuts passed by Republicans during President Trump's first term, alongside making deep spending reductions to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other welfare programs. The measure would primarily benefit wealthy Americans, an analysis by the Yale Budget Lab found last month. Democrats have assailed the legislation as a historic transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and are looking to message around its cuts to health care for the 2026 midterms — even if some of the package's most significant changes don't kick in until 2028. Overall, six in 10 questioned in the CBS/YouGov survey disapprove of the GOP megabill. A similar percentage said that it will help wealthy people and hurt poor people. A separate AP-NORC poll released Saturday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the legislation will do more to help wealthy people. In the CBS/YouGov poll, 40 percent of respondents said they thought the measure will increase their taxes. Another 32 percent said they thought their taxes will not be impacted either way. A majority — 56 percent — said that they tied issues regarding the megabill significantly to how they evaluate President Trump's second term. A plurality of Americans, 44 percent, said they had a 'general sense' of the content of the legislation alongside some specifics. Meanwhile, roughly two in 10 — 22 percent — said they had a general idea of it but lacked specifics. The CBS/YouGov poll was conducted between July 16 and July 18, with a sample of 2,343 and a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.

New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit
New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit

San Francisco Chronicle​

time19 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A new state law in New Hampshire that makes it harder to take gunmaker Sig Sauer to court is getting its first test before a judge on Monday. The 2-month-old law was created by the Republican-led Legislature in response to mounting lawsuits faced by the Newington-based manufacturer over its popular P320 pistol. The lawsuits say that the gun can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation Sig Sauer denies. Sig Sauer, which employs over 2,000 people in New Hampshire, said the gun is safe and the problem is user error. Several large, multi-plaintiff cases filed since 2022 in New Hampshire's federal court representing nearly 80 people accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design, marketing, and negligence, in addition to lawsuits filed in other states. Many of the plaintiffs are current and former law enforcement officers who say they were wounded by the gun. They say the P320 design requires an external mechanical safety, a feature that is optional. The most recent New Hampshire case, representing 22 plaintiffs in 16 states, was filed in March. It's the focus of Monday's hearing. The new law on product liability claims against Sig Sauer and other gun manufacturers covers the 'absence or presence' of the external safety and several other optional features. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects. Attorneys for Sig Sauer argue it should apply to the March case, even though the law didn't exist at the time. 'New Hampshire has a clearly articulated position against such claims being cognizable in this state,' they argue in court documents for breaking up the cases and transferring them to court districts where the plaintiffs live. Lawyers from a Philadelphia-based firm representing the plaintiffs, disagree, saying the law 'has zero implication' on the case and only applies to future lawsuits. New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, the plaintiff's attorneys say. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord. Sig Sauer is trying to decentralize the case, they say. Sig Sauer has prevailed in some cases. It has appealed two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia. A judge recently allowed the Pennsylvania verdict to stand, but vacated $10 million in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Letters to the Editor: Meaningful immigration reform must come from both sides of the aisle
Letters to the Editor: Meaningful immigration reform must come from both sides of the aisle

Los Angeles Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor: Meaningful immigration reform must come from both sides of the aisle

To the editor: If we are to have meaningful immigration reform, which hasn't happened for nearly 40 years, both sides of the aisle must participate ('Democrats, playing defense on immigration, see a flicker of hope in new polls,' July 17). Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida has introduced a bill called the Dignity Act of 2025, which provides legal status to undocumented migrants who meet certain requirements, have no serious criminal record, pay restitution and give 1% of their earnings to the U.S. government. As Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner notes, Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona is also working on immigration reform. He is a centrist Democrat and has a proposal titled 'Securing the Border and Fueling Economic Prosperity.' His plan calls for significant border security enhancements as well as an increase in visa and green card opportunities and pathways to citizenship. Americans from both parties could support immigration reform that is humane and economically sensible. We now have two lawmakers from different political ideologies who have the opportunity to work together and get their colleagues on board on the way to making America a better place to live, and to create a more hopeful future for our children. Anastacio Vigil, Santa Monica

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store