At the beginning of this year, I wrote a column about how the Freedom Caucus would create straw villains as an election issue. Villains would be created where no actual villains exist as a campaign tool to call people names.
In a June column, I outlined how the plan works. A bill full of defects is proposed protecting kids from sex offenders. While the philosophy of the bill is admirable, the language of the bill is a train wreck.
Then, any time a thoughtful legislator asks question or proposes amendments to fix the stupid language of the bill, the Freedom Caucus can send out outrageous mailers claiming the thoughtful legislators are supports pedophiles and pornographers.
So, the Freedom Caucus has proposed a dumb-assed bill with a sexy bill title (26LSO-0080).
The bill is called “Sexually explicit materials in libraries – requirements.” Who could possibly oppose a bill with such a sexy title? The answer is just about anyone who reads the bill and asks hard questions.
The bill is so full of defects, I cannot describe them all in this limited column. Let’s look at some low points.
The bill begins by saying a governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from sexually explicit materials being the children’s section of school or public libraries.
However, since the term “children’s section” is broadly defined to include anywhere anyone persons under the age of 18 may be found, the entire library collection is covered.
In other words, if sexually explicit material is found on a shelf somewhere in a library where a 17 year-old high school senior may be doing homework, that library, its employees, supervisors, board members, school districts will face claims that include a $50,000 penalty as well as damages and attorney fees. Better not have National Geographic on the library shelves.
The bill is not limited to sexually explicit materials that are part of the library’s collection. Any time any person has sexually explicit material in a library, the library is liable. The bill says no sexually explicit material -- period. Get ready for body cavity searches of anyone trying to smuggle a Cosmopolitan Magazine into the library.
If someone is seen with a smart phone into the children’s section of the library, is that a violation? The smart phone certainly has access to sexually explicit material
The act does not limit damages to the governmental claims act limit, so the entities, their employees and their governing bodies as individuals have unlimited strict liability for sexually explicit materials being available in the library. Get ready for hundred million dollar awards against county libraries, with no cap.
The bill does not define what damages need to be paid.
What are the actual damages suffered by seeing a breast being bumped or reading bit of racy language? How much are the taxpayers going to have to pay? How many public dollars are going to be paid out to justify this folly? How much will taxes have to be increased to cover this reckless virtue signaling?
Then, the statute goes on to define “sexually explicit material”. If a copy of this bill finds its way into the children’s section of a library, the library and its staff would be liable for damages from the obscene language contained in the bill describing obscene language.
Then, the bill says each library and EVERY employee of the library shall ensure no sexually explicit materials are accessible in the children’s section of the library at any time.
If there are sexually explicit materials, then the government owned library – meaning the taxpayers – shall be liable for a civil penalty of $50,000. Not up to $50,000. $50,000 for each dirty picture or passage that may be found.
The bill does not explain who gets to keep the civil penalty. The bill does not explain who gets to prosecute the civil penalty. The bill does not contain an appropriation for all of the lawsuits they are creating.
The bill just throws out vague terms that sound good on the campaign trail.
Finally, any “interested party” can file a lawsuit, but the bill does not define who is an “interested party”. Is the interested party a child who saw a dirty picture or read a dirty passage? Is it the parent of that child? Or is it just some bluenose prowling the stacks looking for anything that offends their personal sense of morality or a hungry attorney looking for someone to sue?
I don’t have time or space to illustrate how stupid the language of this bill is. Nor can I explain all the unintended consequences that will flow from poorly written bills such as this legislation.
But, by proposing this stupid bill, the Freedom Caucus creates an opportunity to pose for pictures as Wyoming’s morality police, while calling others who oppose their stupidity and sloppiness pornographers and pedophiles. Get ready for the show.
Tom Lubnau served in the Wyoming Legislature from 2004 - 2015 and is a former Speaker of the House. He can be reached at: YourInputAppreciated@gmail.com
