For children of a certain generation, the library was a refuge and a sanctuary.
I count myself among that generation. I spent countless hours in our local public library. I perused all corners of it -- even the ones that made no sense at the time.
I took my own children to the library frequently when they were young, hoping to foster a similar connection to this place. When they checked out books, I would glance at the titles, but I never worried much about the reading material they could access at the library. If I wanted to look at it, it was right there in front of me.
I was far more concerned about the digital material they could access through their phones that I couldn't easily see. Tech companies have profited wildly from children's and teens' increased use of their devices and platforms. Children are more likely to be exposed to graphic, violent, pornographic and damaging content through these devices and websites -- and unlike a book or magazine that parents can see with their own eyes, we can't monitor every screen our child encounters.
As a parent, I have long wanted lawmakers to enact stronger regulations on Big Tech companies, especially in how they market to, and collect data about, children. I wanted better protections for tech consumers of all ages. But for years, Congress failed to regulate these companies, and they became even more powerful. The Democrats didn't take action, and neither did the Republicans when they were in control.
But somehow, libraries have now emerged as the biggest informational threat to children.
Missouri's Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft has proposed new rules that would block state funding for public libraries that offer books containing "non-age-appropriate materials." Anyone can challenge access to any book under Ashcroft's rules. Missouri libraries that are found to violate the rules would lose state funding -- taxpayer support. The proposal forbids the use of state library funding for any materials that "appeal to the prurient interest of any minor."
This is so utterly bizarre, given how children actually look for and consume information.
Once upon a time, Republicans would have argued that it was a parent's responsibility to monitor what books their child read at a public library. Certainly, it was not the job of the state to ban books for an entire community. But now, alleged conservative Ashcroft is pushing for the state to be able to shut down literal bastions of free speech and independent thought by threatening their funding over "age-appropriate" books.
Any parent who thinks a library presents a risk of salacious material for their child hasn't spent much time on the internet.
Retired teacher John Samuel Tieman of University City, Missouri, who taught English and history for 40 years, recently wrote a column for international news site axar.az about Ashcroft's proposed rules. In it, he argues that "parents should supervise what their children read, but no one should censor what the community reads."
This idea is foundational to what living in a free and open society means. Ashcroft threatening public libraries has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with furthering his political ambitions. Threatening to shut down a library, which ought to be a sacred place of knowledge and ideas, is perverse in a free society.
For those who think these types of rules won't actually lead to the most draconian scenarios, consider that in Missouri, a girl who is raped is now legally mandated to bear her rapist's child.
That's what happens when we think the worst outcomes can't actually occur.
In his column, Tieman posed a question to Ashcroft and Republicans who support him: "Burn any good books lately?"
I wish it were hyperbole.