Protesters Say Proposed Change To State Law Would Lead To Book Bans

In doing so, the protesters contended, those institutions would be open up to possible lawsuits that could require them to pull books discussing some topics, such as sexual identity, from their shelves on the grounds of obscenity.

Many in the crowd held signs decorated with phrases like “Free People Read Freely.” Many were colorful and some had rainbows. The protesters came from towns across the Cape and even from off-Cape.

The bill, which was brought forward by three Falmouth Republican Town Committee members—Diane Sue (Deedee) Dorrington, Pamela M. Vidal and Susan C. Daniels—aims “to protect children from being exposed to explicit and sexually graphic curricula.”

It does so by opening up librarians, schoolteachers and museum employees to liability should they use “obscene” materials to provide sexual education to minors. The petitioners’ definition of obscene includes books that graphically or colloquially explain sex and masturbation.

The petitioners say those books and materials “teach promiscuity.” Kim Keith, a Mashpee resident and school librarian, said otherwise.

“As a school librarian, there’s a process,” Ms. Keith said to the Enterprise while standing among the protesters outside the meeting. She went on to explain that librarians are responsible for deciding which materials are appropriate and for what age group. Under this proposal, in doing her job, “I could be arrested,” she added. “It’s absurd.”

She was among several librarians who attended the event. One protester came from as far away as Holbrook.

People flooded the community center minutes before the presentation was set to begin. From the entrance to the meeting room in the back of the main floor, it was near-shoulder-to-shoulder. People held signs as they tried to find a spot in the cramped meeting room.

Children wearing tae kwon do robes trickled between the many protesters on their way to their lesson at the center.

Ms. Dorrington, wearing a patterned dress and black leather boots, stood on one of the wooden benches in the hallway leading up to the meeting room. Head above the crowd, she said there were more people than the meeting room could hold. Far more people.

“I have to tell you, it was very unexpected to have this kind of crowd,” she said to the mass.

She made her way into the meeting room, where more than 50 people had packed in. Just inside the room, to the left, there was a long table covered with a bright red tablecloth. On it was a sign-in sheet.

The room had dark red plastic seats for some. The rest were left standing. As Ms. Dorrington prepared to begin, she faced the crowd. The crowd faced her, with some holding signs of protest. Behind Ms. Dorrington was a wall of glass.

The fluorescent, overhead lights were off, and the fading orange sunlight of an early spring evening pierced the room.

On the other side of the glass were many more protesters. One person held a sign that read “Knowledge is not “EXPLICIT.” Others held books against the glass, among them “1984” by George Orwell, “The Scarlet Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne and “Red, White & Royal Blue” by Casey McQuiston. Those books, among others, delve into countercultural or anti-establishment themes. The novel “1984” is one of the most well-known anti-censorship books to date, “The Scarlet Letter” explores guilt and sin, and “Red, White & Royal Blue” is a gay romance novel.

Ms. Dorrington and the two other petitioners did not expect their presentation to be standing room only, nor that the crowd would be largely made up of protesters. She said so several times throughout her presentation. Nevertheless, she kicked things off, the projected PowerPoint presentation becoming the focal point.

The room heated up—emotionally and literally.

She said the bill aims to remove a line in an existing law that protects librarians and schoolteachers from the obscenity law. That current exemption allows sexual education in schools and libraries to involve depictions of intercourse and the human body.

“In our belief, the last line…is contrary to the intent of the law,” Ms. Dorrington said.

She showed pages of educational books that depict—as cartoons or drawings—sexual acts like intercourse and masturbation. She described the materials as obscene under the state’s existing legal definition, likening some of the allowed materials to Hustler magazine, which she called “so obscene, so degenerate.” She claimed that Hustler could be among the sexual education publications on library shelves.

Among the examples presented were various books that explain sex; the goal of those books is to ensure that teenagers have safe sex, rather than unsafe sex, which can lead more easily to sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. The presenters said the books go too far.

Ms. Dorrington could hardly finish a statement without interruption. Some shouted. Some jeered. Others interjected to ask questions.

She went on to show a video depicting a cartoon minor masturbating while in private. The boy depicted was covered by a blanket. The video is a sexual education resource meant to explain why children going through puberty might feel sexual impulses that would be new to them.

She described an image depicting a drawn anus alongside an explanation of anal sex.

“We would ask you: Is this necessary in our school libraries and in our libraries throughout town?” she asked the crowd.

The room kept heating up.

As the presentation carried on, Ms. Dorrington tried to assure the crowd that books about gender identity would not be affected. She added at various moments that the bill is not meant as a book ban.

The effect, however, would almost certainly be books off the shelves, protesters said.

Under the proposed legislation, a parent could sue a librarian for using “obscene” materials to teach sexual education, they said. If the parent won, the books would be pulled from the shelves.

Opponents say the legislation would create a standard of self-censorship enforced by threats of legal action.

Nevertheless, Ms. Dorrington said, the legislation is not meant to stop sexual education completely, adding that she supports some sexual education. She said the legislation is meant only to censor the materials she and her fellow petitioners deem as obscene under existing state laws.

One protester and attendee standing against the wall, William A. DeCarolis of Pocasset, said the legislation would open the door to more-sweeping bans.

“These people want to put you in jail. That’s what this is about,” he said of the librarians in the room. “I hope everybody in this room knows what a red herring is, because they don’t care about all the obscenity. They want to destroy a law that gives a reasonable defense to people like her,” Mr. DeCarolis added, gesturing to a librarian. “That’s what this is about.”

The crowd roared with applause.

Another said the bill is “opening the door to censorship.” A third called it a “slippery slope.” Some protester signs displayed fears that passing this bill could lead to censorship of books aimed at diverse audiences, limiting access queer children or children of color have to books with characters like themselves.

Further discussion followed. Tensions rose. Some attendees left in the middle of the presentation.

Nearly all those from the crowd who spoke did so in opposition to the legislation.

Ms. Dorrington and Ms. Daniels continued to let people speak their minds. Ms. Dorrington struggled with the combative and interrupting crowd and on various occasions told the people that they were “acting like a bunch of kids.” At one point she told them to “shut up.”

Several times, Ms. Dorrington pleaded with the crowd to let her finish. She was just presenting her beliefs, she said, and people are welcome to oppose it, but should refrain from rudely interrupting. At one point Ms. Dorrington made a direct appeal to her supporters in the room, asking for a supportive comment instead of further bombardment with protest.

About an hour into the presentation, the crowd had not diminished. The crowd outside the room had grown. One person holding a sign went outside so an act of protest would be visible through the rear window of the room.

“Our teachers and librarians are heroes,” one attendee said, standing among the seated viewers. “To hold them, or any employee, responsible for references to sex or sexual identity, to fine or imprison them, is dangerous and morally reprehensible.”

A Barnstable library director, Autumn Hassett, said the news of the proposed legislation and presentation sent a rumble throughout her library.

“When I heard about this meeting, my staff was immediately upset. This sent waves through the library professional community,” she said. “[Parents] send their children on their bikes to our library without them. They trust us…. We do not take advantage of that, and that’s what you’re attempting to strike out. You’re attempting to censor, and you’re disguising it with this ‘sexualism.’”

Several protesters questioned how truthful Ms. Dorrington’s assertions were.

“What I’m hearing from you, is a lot of, sort of, hearsay, hype,” one woman said. “I’m not really hearing about any specific situations where a child has been harmed. I’m not hearing any reference to any statistics. I’m not hearing any proof, really, of any of this.”

Ms. Dorrington declined to share numbers or evidence, and said, “You can take my word for it or not.”

One attendee said she works with children who have endured sexual abuse, and that sexual education is crucial to helping those children heal.

Ms. Dorrington had a suggestion for her. “One way to not teach children how to be sexually abused is to not create sex to be so enticing,” she offered.

At various times protesters said they supported the materials presented as examples because they are important in the context of education.

None said they supported distributing the materials to children outside of educational contexts.

Throughout, Ms. Dorrington insisted the bill is “nonpartisan.” She said the aim is to keep materials she deems obscene out of the hands of children she says are too young to see them. Many in the crowd scoffed when she called the bill nonpartisan.

All three petitioners are Republicans. Ms. Dorrington called that fact happenstance.

Another protester called Ms. Dorrington out for posts that “attack trans people,” suggesting the petitioners cannot be trusted as nonpartisan advocates with no ulterior motives. Ms. Dorrington denied any such attacks, and the crowd roared once again. One person in the hallway held up an iPad and showed the crowd Ms. Dorrington’s Facebook posts opposing transgender rights.

Some opponents of the proposed legislation said it would lead to censoring literature and education for minority groups—like transgender people.

Soon thereafter, the three petitioners decided it was time to end the discussion.

As protesters and the few supporters left the building they walked past two Falmouth police officers, who stayed for the protest after an unrelated medical event transpired in the same building. They cited an “increased presence” when explaining why they stayed at the event.

Getting out of the building took some time, as the hallways and doorways could fit only one or two people side by side. But the protesters and other attendees made their way out to their cars with their homemade signs, put them back into their cars and began to leave after the nearly two-hour protest.

The bill by request, H.2042, has made its way to the joint committee on the judiciary in the General Court of Massachusetts. Of 17 members, only three are Republicans.

State Representative David T. Vieira (R-Barnstable 3rd District), presenter of the bill, said bills by request are unique to Massachusetts and allow residents to offer up legislation through their local representatives. Rep. Vieira said representatives are obligated to present those bills regardless of their support or opposition for them.

Rep. Vieira is not a sponsor of this bill and did not voice his position on the matter.

He added that about 88% of all bills do not get a full floor vote and that to do so, this bill would require a vote by the judiciary committee advancing it to such a vote. There is no established timeline for such a bill to get the required committee vote.