Comité Judiciary Non-Civil de la Cámara de Representantes, 6 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

248 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:15:55

   I know everybody's still trying to get set down, but anyways, um, I'm gonna ask, uh, Chairman Leverett if he'd open us up in a word of prayer.

2. 0:16:07

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, pray with me if you would. Father, thank you for this day. Thank you for this opportunity for us to gather together and, uh, do the business of the people of the state. Please be with us as we make decisions regarding different policies today, and make sure that everything we do is consistent with your will. Uh, it's in y- your name we pray. Amen.

3. 0:16:25

   Amen. All right. I'm gonna take some public comment because we were not able to since we adjourned early last night. So I'm gonna go through. I'll give you a minute, as I did yesterday. So, uh, Mike and I cannot...

4. 0:16:41

   Sorry.

5. 0:16:42

   Okay, come on up. Just tell us where you're from.

6. 0:16:45

   Um-

7. 0:16:46

   Good to see ya.

8. 0:16:47

   Thank you very much. And I wanna, really wanna thank the subcommittee for the time that we, the discussion that we had on Tuesday on this. I'm not quite sure what to say because I'm waiting to see what the revised language is, uh, that was worked on. But based on last night, I did have a minor, uh, technical question about the, uh, wording, and it may take me a moment to come up. But it, it was not clear w- uh, when it says the librarians have to follow the local policy, it was unclear to me whether that meant the policy regarding a specific piece of material or the policy for the way that complaints about books are handled, and I can, uh...

9. 0:17:25

   It, it may take me a moment to pull it up. That was my, uh, concern about that language. Other than that, I'm thankful that we're at this point now. Uh, I think it's, uh, I'm not bothered by the addition of language saying that the, uh, uh, reviewers need to be, uh, notified or be aware of the obscenity code, but I'm not sure that language is in the latest revision. Um, so it's hard for me to say. I appreciate that progress, but I do think there may be some, uh, room for clarity on the language because it's to me not clear whether the review referred to in the new language refers to, uh, the, the way a particular complaint about a piece of material was handled or the way that they are hand- the complaints are handled in general.

10. 0:18:07

    Um, thanks. I may have more to say after I know what the revisions are-

11. 0:18:11

    Thanks

12. 0:18:11

    ... but that's my thoughts for now. Thank you for the time, sir.

13. 0:18:14

    Thank you.

14. 0:18:14

    Mr. Chairman.

15. 0:18:15

    Uh, Mike Katinsu.

16. 0:18:17

    Katinski.

17. 0:18:19

    And pronounce that for me please.

18. 0:18:20

    Katinski.

19. 0:18:21

    Katinski? Okay.

20. 0:18:22

    Yeah.

21. 0:18:22

    All right. Come on down.

22. 0:18:24

    Um, thanks. I'm a, I'm a Georgia native since '74 I guess. Um, and, uh, not a preacher, not a mom, not an activist, just heard about this and honestly, not to offend, but it ticked me off. Um, the, uh, the majority of people are working right now. They're not in this room. Um, and I think a lot of us are just looking for less problems in our lives, and I feel like this bill is creating a problem. We decided in '84 to create an exception for free speech in the libraries, to allow libraries to have adult-themed m- materials for adults and to be open to children.

23. 0:19:02

    That hasn't changed. Um, the amendments that we had, was discussed yesterday doesn't resolve that. It actually makes things a little worse because now the review panel of these libraries is now subject to, uh, to prosecution because the review panel is currently protected by the exception clause. Um, you're not solving a problem here, you're creating one. People are going to be intimidated from making decisions they need to by threat of a lawsuit. They will be, uh...

24. 0:19:34

    You know, they're gonna win those lawsuits eventually. We all, we've all seen that the courts have upheld the rights here, and they're still going to be subjected to cost, to burdensome time, to nuisance, and to public abuse. And-

25. 0:19:47

    Mike, we're running out of time.

26. 0:19:48

    Sure.

27. 0:19:48

    I'll give you a chance to conclude.

28. 0:19:50

    Uh, just to conclude, I, I really think the bill in total needs to be put away, and I think people would, would rather, you know, leave it as is and continue the work you're doing to lower our taxes and improve our lives in general. Thank you.

29. 0:20:03

    Thank you for coming back today. Um, it was unfortunate we couldn't get to you last night, so thank you for making the effort again today. Next I have, uh, Sarah Hunt Blackwell. Come on down, Sarah.

30. 0:20:16

    Good. Is it still morning? Good morning . I'm like, I don't know what time it is. Uh, Sarah Hunt Blackwell, senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Georgia. Um, just want to h- make sure that we remember that what we're talking about is the librarians. I know we're all here to protect children, that this body has the responsibility to protect the children of Georgia, but we also have the responsibility of protecting librarians, and that should not be lost, um, in this legislation no matter what version of the legislation, um, is brought forward.

31. 0:20:54

    So making librarians' jobs more difficult, um, subjecting them to criminal liability, putting them in position to have to, um, initiate book challenges or reshelving of books on top of the responsibilities that they already have is not beneficial, and it does not, in, im- imposing those requirements and those burdens really does not have any protection on children. Our librarians are doing their jobs very, very, very well, and I think that enough librarians have come forth over the course of last year's session and this session-

32. 0:21:30

    Sarah-

33. 0:21:30

    ... and made that clear

34. 0:21:31

    ... I'll give you a chance to conclude.

35. 0:21:33

    Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um, I, please just keep our librarians in mind. Thank you.

36. 0:21:38

    Thank you. All right. Next we have Bentley Hudgens.

37. 0:21:47

    Check the time. Are we still... Good morning . My name is Bentley Hudgens, uh, and I am the Georgia State Director of the Human Rights Campaign.

38. 0:21:57

    Thank you all for this opportunity to speak with you all. I haven't been able to speak with you all but against this bill. Um, the Human Rights Campaign opposes this bill. If you look in Section 1612102, it defines sexual conduct, and it specifically enumerates homosexuality as sexual conduct. And my question to you is, is being homosexual itself obscene? Is it wrong? I remember when I was that kid, and I was told is who I am is wrong.

39. 0:22:30

    And as this bill is written, the sexual conduct as, uh, as defined in 102 is enforced in 103 if we would pass this bill. So all I'm saying is, is that this bill moves forward as it is written, it would punish kids and librarians for seeking out books that are a- even if they are age-appropriate, for just kids holding hands, for seeing relationships that they like to see. So I ask you to oppose this bill or to at least amend the language to take out homosexuality from the definition of sexual conduct.

40. 0:23:04

    Thank you.

41. 0:23:06

    Thank you. Uh, and last, Makayla Arciaga.

42. 0:23:13

    Thank you, Chairman. Hello, uh, again, members of the committee. Uh, my name is Makayla Arciaga. I'm the Georgia Advocacy Director for the, uh, for IDRA and the Georgia Education Justice Coalition. Uh, we represent stakeholders across the state, including school librarians. I'm coming to just reiterate some of the questions about we heard... or to answer some of the questions we heard about process, specifically in schools, uh, where a lot of the concerns for the language as written and in the amendment we saw are lie. Um, the school process for material review is incredibly intensive and democratic.

43. 0:23:44

    When a, when a material is c- uh, disputed, uh, it's not just the librarian who makes the unilateral decision. They call in experts, um, at the grade level. They invite parents. They invite students. That varies in specific details across systems, but in general, every school system and every actually public library system is required to have a process that outlines this. Our concern is that by s- jumping straight, uh... What we've heard, I think, over the last few months is that there's not clear guidelines for what the community is necessarily looking for and what you all are looking for.

44. 0:24:16

    And then we have jumped straight from trying to provide material standards for what you all want to see, and added criminal penalties, essentially setting librarians up to fail, and then be charged as criminals. So I would encourage us to consider that this is a larger process. We have 26 more days of legislative session to take our time and figure out how to merge all of these processes. I see you. Um, and do due diligence by incredible pillars of our community, and support our librarians by making sure we do this correctly.

45. 0:24:55

    Thank you.

46. 0:24:56

    Thank you. All right. That concludes, uh, those that signed up. Was there anybody else that just happened to mosey in that didn't get a chance to sign up that wanted to speak or that didn't get to speak last night that wanted to today? Okay. All right. Now, current posture that we are in, members, there was an amendment, or a move for an amendment from, uh, Vice Chair Hong, and we have that language together, so I'm gonna let her present that now.

47. 0:25:27

    Thank you, Chairman. Um, my amendment would... Let me look at both.

48. 0:25:34

    Turn the 15s.

49. 0:25:36

    Would change in line 15, would place a period after university. It would delete if the person sem- semicolon. And then starting with line 16, uh, or replacing 16 through 23 would add, one, the immunity provided b- by this code section shall not apply if the person failed to comply with the appropriate governing authority's decisions pursuant to requests or complaints regarding materials harmful to minors.

50. 0:26:16

    In addition, we are going to add a new section to, to amend... Oh, I'm sorry. We're gonna amend, um, code section OCGA 20-5-43, and would add number nine and state, "To establish training procedures for members reviewing reconsideration requests regarding materials harmful to minors as provided in code section 16-12-103."

51. 0:26:56

    Members, y'all have that before you, correct?

52. 0:27:00

    Mm-hmm.

53. 0:27:00

    All right. I think it was question number seven. Is that Dar'shun? Representative Kendrick.

54. 0:27:05

    Yes. Thank you. Um, I have, uh, one or maybe two questions. Uh, the first one is, um, the governing authority's decisions. Um, is it currently in the code now that they are required to-

55. 0:27:23

    Mm-hmm

56. 0:27:24

    ... um, follow the decision of the governing authority in statute currently?

57. 0:27:29

    There's in statute currently a provision where there has to be a board that basically oversees, um, certain complaints, et cetera. So it's not just librarians that get to decide what happens when there is a complaint. So yes, there is a, an entire section statute that establishes, um, different boards essentially. And yesterday's testimony, um, what we've heard have, and what I've heard honestly from my, um...

58. 0:28:05

    County a- as well, they've reached out, um, since yesterday's testimony and stated that they have in place board of trustees, um, and-or different boards that review these complaints for every one of the libraries.

59. 0:28:21

    Okay.

60. 0:28:21

    The public libraries.

61. 0:28:23

    All right. Thank you. Can I have a follow-up, uh, clarification question? So if that is the case, w- what is the, I guess, legal purpose of putting in, in code that they have immunity if it's already in statute that, um, they're governed by this governing authority's decisions?

62. 0:28:45

    So I think y- you're not understanding this part. So if you're looking at the part before, if you look at the code section, essentially we're saying the... If, if, essentially if a librarian is... This immunity would not apply, um, if the governing authority had stated, "Hey, you need to reshelve or remove a certain book to a different section," and the librarian fails to do that, then basically that immunity for them not being liable goes away.

63. 0:29:22

    So if, if... Simply put, if there is a complaint, the board goes through, reviews it and says, "Yes, we agree with the complaint. We need to go ahead and remove it to a different section." And if the librarian says, "No, I'm not going to," then the librarian will be individually liable. If the librarian follows what the governing board says, then that's it, the end.

64. 0:29:47

    Okay. I under- I understood what you're saying.

65. 0:29:49

    Mm-hmm.

66. 0:29:49

    It doesn't answer my question, but I'll try to come back and better rephrase it, 'cause that's, that's not what I, what I was asking. But I'll-

67. 0:29:55

    Okay

68. 0:29:55

    ... I'll try to come back and rephrase it.

69. 0:29:59

    Okay. I have number five, Representative Roberts.

70. 0:30:04

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I understand in the context of public libraries, like we heard from some of our testimony before, but I'm trying to understand who the governing authority is for, say, a school, um, library situation.

71. 0:30:22

    Uh, yes. I think, uh, phone a friend, Chairman Leverett.

72. 0:30:26

    Yeah.

73. 0:30:27

    Phone a friend.

74. 0:30:27

    Governing body of a school is the school board.

75. 0:30:30

    The school board.

76. 0:30:30

    Every school district is, the, uh, school board is the governing body. Libraries in the, the section we're amending comes from, it's actually in the education chapter, but it doesn't apply. It, it, it's a, it's a broader statute that applies to public libraries. They have to have a board of trustees. So, like, I'm on the Elbert County Board of Trustees of the Elbert County Library. So all the public libraries around the state that aren't school affiliated are required to have a, a board of trustees as their governing body. So that would be the governing body in that case.

77. 0:30:59

    Right. So the second section that we're adding pertains to making sure they have the proper education. But the first section now says if you don't, if a librarian doesn't follow the school board's direction, they can be held criminally liable. Is that correct?

78. 0:31:16

    That's the way I read it.

79. 0:31:17

    Hold on a second, y'all. Um, ma'am, with the photographer, I, I had to do this last night. Uh, I'm okay with y'all videoing and taking pictures, but not from behind where members are sitting.

80. 0:31:30

    Okay.

81. 0:31:30

    So if you wanna come over here. Sorry to interrupt the discussion.

82. 0:31:32

    No, that's okay. So that is the understanding. So, okay. Um, got it. Thank you.

83. 0:31:42

    I had another one lit up. Did you change your mind? Discretion being the better part of valor, I love it. All right. Okay.

84. 0:31:50

    Okay.

85. 0:31:51

    Uh, I mean, we've had robust discussion on that. Uh, Senator Burns, are you amendable to that?

86. 0:31:59

    I am. Thank you. I wanna thank the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you, and I certainly appreciate the, uh, discussion and the amendment, and it's acceptable.

87. 0:32:06

    Okay. All right. Uh, you've heard the Hong amendment. Uh, just for clarification, believe I need a second on that.

88. 0:32:13

    Second.

89. 0:32:14

    All right, made a second on the Hong amendment. All those in favor say, "Aye."

90. 0:32:18

    Aye.

91. 0:32:18

    All those opposed, same sign.

92. 0:32:21

    No.

93. 0:32:21

    Ayes have it. All right. Anything further from the committee?

94. 0:32:27

    Are we having discussion?

95. 0:32:30

    Yeah.

96. 0:32:30

    Yeah, go ahead.

97. 0:32:30

    Yeah. Excuse me. Let, let me say, any other amendments from the committee?

98. 0:32:33

    Yes.

99. 0:32:34

    All right. Is that you, number five, Representative Roberts?

100. 0:32:37

     Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I wanna... Well, geez, now I don't know what line number it is, because we just changed everything, didn't we? Um, it was after line 26. Basically, um, I want to amend, it refers to 16-12-1025, uh, to describe what is harmful to children and sexual conduct. And-

101. 0:33:04

     Whoa, whoa, whoa. I- I'm confused. Where?

102. 0:33:08

     So 103 and... I'm sorry, 10- Um, let me do this. Where's the thing?

103. 0:33:16

     Which, which LC number are you thinking of?

104. 0:33:22

     I think we have them.

105. 0:33:22

     I guess, are we still on 48-906S?

106. 0:33:26

     Yes.

107. 0:33:26

     Yes.

108. 0:33:26

     Okay. So this section refers to Section 102, which is not on this bill. But it refers to it to define what is harmful to children, and we just wanna remove homosexuality out of 16-12-1025.

109. 0:33:48

     Because we don't want books where two boys are holding hands or two girls are getting banned simply because they're saying that that's harmful to children.

110. 0:33:55

     You're proposing an amendment to 16-2-105?

111. 0:33:57

     102.

112. 0:33:57

     102.

113. 0:33:58

     1025.

114. 0:33:59

     Section five.

115. 0:34:00

     For your information.

116. 0:34:00

     Yes. Correct.

117. 0:34:05

     No, I don't have it.

118. 0:34:07

     Okay.

119. 0:34:07

     I can pass... Well, I have the amendment, but y'all-

120. 0:34:12

     I-

121. 0:34:12

     ... here, pass those, or

122. 0:34:15

     Any discussion on the amendment?

123. 0:34:18

     'Cause otherwise it would automatically exclude anything related to homosexuality.

124. 0:34:31

     Uh, see no questions from members of the committee, but Senator Burns, if, if you'd like to weigh in.

125. 0:34:36

     I- if I may, uh, just, uh, make a comment. First of all, this bill does not address 16-12-102. It does not. No, no, it, it addressed 16-12-103, and this is 16-12-104, so this section is 16-12-104. Now, let's look at 16-12-102. Again, I may... I'm not a lawyer. I think that's a, a privilege and a benefit, especially in this committee. But, but I, I, I, if I, if I pull up Justia, is that right? But what, what...

126. 0:35:06

     I just need for someone to read to me where the word homosexuality appears in the definition.

127. 0:35:14

     It's in the definition section, which is 102.

128. 0:35:17

     I got it.

129. 0:35:18

     1025-

130. 0:35:19

     I got 102...

131. 0:35:20

     Sexual conduct

132. 0:35:21

     ... 1025, sexual conduct.

133. 0:35:23

     1025.

134. 0:35:25

     Mm-hmm.

135. 0:35:26

     I... Thank you very much. I got it.

136. 0:35:29

     No problem.

137. 0:35:30

     Okay.

138. 0:35:41

     I, I appreciate the amendment. Uh, it's the will of the committee, I would suggest to you that the intent of this bill was not to change the law of Georgia on, um, the definition of harmful material.

139. 0:36:04

     Okay. Any other discussion on amendment?

140. 0:36:20

     I have a question.

141. 0:36:21

     Okay. Representative Panitch.

142. 0:36:23

     I know that's not your intent, but we're amending everything right now. And so do you have an objection to striking the word homosexuality from 102?

143. 0:36:34

     I think that's a, a, a discussion, a, a discussion for a different forum and at a different time. And I think if you open up that challenge, you open up the, the reality that harmful material is available, uh, prevalently across our state. So I believe that your amendment, uh, Senator, um, Representative Roberts... Didn't mean to demote you. I apologize. Uh, Representative Roberts, uh, creates the issue of us changing established Georgia law, and I think that's a worthy debate and a worthy discussion.

144. 0:37:07

     And I would suggest that you bring legislation to address the issue and not tack your ideas onto this particular piece of, uh, legislation.

145. 0:37:18

     Senator, may I follow up?

146. 0:37:20

     Yes.

147. 0:37:20

     Senator, we just added 16-12-102, and you're, you're changing the code entirely.

148. 0:37:30

     Uh-

149. 0:37:30

     But 102, 103, and 104 rely on 102 to define what the issues are. And so I want to know, are, do you object to striking the word homosexuality from the definition?

150. 0:37:43

     I object to tacking y- y- your proposal onto a bill that is designed to protect children from harmful material.

151. 0:37:51

     Are you-

152. 0:37:51

     Now, and I would say, again respectfully, that's a worthy discussion and a worthy debate, and I welcome you dropping legislation to address that issue. This issue relies on well-established Georgia law that goes back for 30 or 40 years. Should it be revisited? Perhaps, but that's not, that's beyond the scope of my legislation.

153. 0:38:12

     Okay.

154. 0:38:14

     Uh, Represent- or Chairman Crowe.

155. 0:38:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we're... I'm trying to share with my very knowledgeable friend over here in the book. Um, but I'm, I'm concerned a little bit because this is referenced in many different places, and I'm looking at a printout of your amendment here. Um, and this is essentially changing the definition of sexual conduct, which also includes other acts that would, uh, be considered or fall under the, um, sexual conduct definition.

156. 0:38:49

     A- and I just worry that how that's done, this may have an effect in other parts of the code as well. C- can you tell me if that's the case or not? A- and I somewhat agree with Senator Burns. I, I think it's a, it's a worthy conversation to have at some point. I just worry about the other impacts it's gonna have throughout the code, because there's a lot of things that may refer back to this definition and how that's defined and how sexual intercourse and physical conduct, uh, in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or gratification, other things in here, how that's defined and where this falls in and what it may actually change of the definition.

157. 0:39:23

     So that's the only concern I have kinda doing this on the fly.

158. 0:39:29

     General

159. 0:39:33

     Now, that's, that's him this time, Mr. Chairman.

160. 0:39:35

     Johnny's talking. Yeah.

161. 0:39:35

     We're sharing a microphone 'cause his don't work.

162. 0:39:38

     Representative Leverett.

163. 0:39:43

     It, it's, it's appropriate that, uh, Chairman Crowe and I are sharing a, a microphone on this discussion, I think.

164. 0:39:51

     Um, so what is the reason for the-

165. 0:39:53

     Is that following the definition?

166. 0:39:54

     Yeah. I'm worried we may be violating the law right now. Um, what is the reason for the lady's, uh, am- proposed amendment? I- is it because she is concerned that, as written, the law currently renders illegal any depiction of any... If, if that homosexuality could be just simple expressions of affection or-

167. 0:40:15

     Yes

168. 0:40:15

     ... or h- hand-holding and that sort of thing would be rendered, um, or, are currently considered harmful to minors, and now we're going to make any book that, that talks about that illegal?

169. 0:40:25

     Correct.

170. 0:40:25

     Okay. I, I take a different view of the way that definition works. As I understand it, the word sexual conduct i- is defined, if you look at the, the sort of the four corners of the definition, I don't think it's simply talking about, um, you know, two people of the same sex expressing some kind of affection through hand-holding or any kind of physical contact. It's talking about sexual contact, contact involving, you know, uh, privates.

171. 0:40:56

     Um, and so I don't feel like the definition is needed to achieve that particular goal, and I'm not really sure what impact it would have by striking the word. So that, for that reason, I do not support the amendment, but I respect the ladies-

172. 0:41:11

     Can I respond?

173. 0:41:11

     ... who might disagree with my legal interpretation and construction.

174. 0:41:14

     So we have a comma that is separating intercourse, so if they're worried about actual sex, that would be covered. It's separate from that. So it does seem like we could remove the word so that we don't get into this situation, especially when we have, in the school situation, school boards that could render a decision depending on where you are in the state, that a librarian is forced to comply with, and we get into banning lots of books that kids cannot see themselves in that are just affection, not s- sexual intercourse or acts like that.

175. 0:41:53

     So that is my concern about what we're doing in this right now. I think the amendment is actually worse than what we had before, um, and gives more power to the school boards to chill books. Um, so thank you.

176. 0:42:09

     Number six, Representative Panitch.

177. 0:42:12

     Nope, I'm sorry. You can go to the next one.

178. 0:42:15

     All right. Um, okay, we've had a robust discussion, uh, and thank y'all members for showing up today.

179. 0:42:29

     Can I make a motion?

180. 0:42:29

     I made the motion.

181. 0:42:29

     Oh, I second.

182. 0:42:30

     Yeah. Oh, we second. Okay. There's a motion and a second.

183. 0:42:33

     Can I get a handout?

184. 0:42:34

     Is there a second? Hold on a second. Everybody just hold on. This ain't Grand Central Station. One at a time. I got a motion and a second. Are you requesting to speak, Representative Kendrick? No, I was just requesting a handout. Okay. All right. Then it's at the determination of the chair. And so anyways, got a motion and a second on the Roberts Amendment that you have before you. All those in favor say aye.

185. 0:43:00

     Aye.

186. 0:43:01

     All those opposed say, uh, same sign.

187. 0:43:04

     No.

188. 0:43:05

     Okay. Uh, all those opposed, raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand.

189. 0:43:16

     No.

190. 0:43:16

     The, the noes have it, the amendment fails. All right. I'm gonna call the question on the bill with the Hong Amendment. All those in favor of the passage of SB74 as amended with the Hong Amendment say... Oh.

191. 0:43:29

     We need to discuss.

192. 0:43:31

     Yes, I'll provide very brief discussion.

193. 0:43:34

     Okay.

194. 0:43:35

     Representative Panitch.

195. 0:43:36

     Thank you. This is my concern. This is really a book ban, uh, 'cause right now Georgia law gives broad exemptions to librarians, uh, under the current law, the law that has been the law since 1984, but the law you wanna change right now. SB74 guts the protection. Under the bill, when someone files a complaint about the book, a book, the library's governing authority makes a decision, and if the librarian fails to comply, they lose their legal immunity. They don't just get fired, they get prosecuted.

196. 0:44:08

     They get arrested, not a reprimand, not a fine, not remedial education. Criminal charges for a librarian who keeps a book on the shelf. The way we know this is because it's in the criminal code. So now every library board in Georgia becomes a censorship board, and these boards won't be weighing literary merit or educational value, they'll be calculating legal risk. When the choice is between keeping a challenged book on the shelf or exposing your libraries to prosecution, the book will lose every time, and it only takes one.

197. 0:44:45

     The moment the first librarian in Georgia is arrested, one mugshot, one perp walk, one prosecution, every other librarian and every library board in this state gets the message that that book is now gone, not from one library, but from every library, and that's in the county and then the state. The people pushing for these challenges know that. They don't need to go library by library. They just need one arrest, and the books disappear statewide on their own.

198. 0:45:18

     That is the direct effect of this bill. That is the design. That is a book ban. That is why I oppose this bill. Thank you.

199. 0:45:30

     Okay. Representative Roberts.

200. 0:45:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,

201. 0:45:38

     I just don't understand when, uh, the leadership in our chamber said they didn't want red meat issues, when so many, um, folks testified here they don't wanna lock up librarians. This is literally changing the criminal code. There is no other way to look at this. We have said in our, our chamber that literacy is the number one priority. Right now, we are ranked 46th in reading ed- engagement behind Alabama. Two-thirds of our fourth graders are not reading on level, and yet today we're threatening one of the very professions whose entire mission is to help children read and to love reading.

202. 0:46:20

     Instead of investing in libraries, literacy programs, and access to books, this book's, this bill is going to chill- ... is gonna ban books. I mean, that's the reality. And to be honest, I guarantee you there are so many sections in our Bible, and I don't want our Bibles banned from libraries, but it talks about rape, incest, prostitution, all kinds of very explicit stuff in the Bible. So if we pass this bill, that is also subject to this ban, and I am completely opposed to this bill.

203. 0:46:53

     It puts a minority group in control over what every parent chooses to allow their children to read. And last I checked, parental choice was a big priority of leadership in this, in this, um, body as well. And so I'm opposed to this bill.

204. 0:47:12

     Thank you. That hellfire and damnation is pretty scary in there too, I might add. Uh, number 16. Is that, which one of them fine gentlemen over there?

205. 0:47:23

     This poor, this poor-

206. 0:47:24

     Go ahead Chairman Leverett.

207. 0:47:26

     Well, on that side.

208. 0:47:34

     Well, Representative, I've been kicked out of better clubs than this before. So, um, no, I, I don't believe ... To, to be serious, I, I do not view this as a ban. It is not talking about removing a book from a library. It's simply talking about moving it to a place f- to which access by minors is more restricted and controlled. That's a great difference. I would agree with you if we were talking about burning them or taking them out of the library altogether, that would be a bigger concern. This simply places them with, with some degree of regulation. Now, the thing I- I'm worried about, 'cause I'm on a library board, um, is we're sort of creating a section-

209. 0:48:11

     Mm-hmm

210. 0:48:11

     ... of the library fro- from which the perspective of every eight-year-old to 15-year-old guy, all the good stuff is. And so it's gonna be a challenge, I think, for our librarians to make sure they, they have some kind of, uh, control of access. And how they determine that, I think, is something they'll have to develop with their own discretion. But it, it's, it's not a ban. This is not a ban. I understand the concern, as a guy who's on the library board, about trying to make these determinations, but schools do it already. I think a lot of libraries do it already. Um, and frankly, I think the way we've drafted this, uh, we're basically just asking them to come up with a policy and apply the policy and the people who work there to follow the policy, which I think they already do very conscientiously.

211. 0:48:54

     So I don't view this, while it is a change, and it is a big deal, I, I don't mean to minimize that, I don't believe that this is quite the catastrophic act that it is, to which it is being attributed, and I believe it imposes some reasonableness in the way we administer libraries which are accessible by children. So that's the reason for my vote.

212. 0:49:15

     Number seven. Representative Kendrick.

213. 0:49:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so since we're in the discussion questions, I do have a few questions for the committee to con-

214. 0:49:26

     It's not question, but if you, as, as part of discussion.

215. 0:49:29

     Yeah.

216. 0:49:29

     You're saying your question for a discussion.

217. 0:49:30

     Right.

218. 0:49:31

     Okay.

219. 0:49:31

     Correct.

220. 0:49:31

     All right.

221. 0:49:32

     Um, so I got a letter from the 2020 school librarian, uh, of the year, um, and she talks about how she gave a book to a student, um, about being new at a school, and she felt so much joy because now the student had friends based on the book that she was able to give them. And so that's the work that all of our librarians are doing all over the state, just doing their job and trying to help our students. But here are, um, some, some questions for the committee to, to consider.

222. 0:50:05

     Um, when book challenges escalate, inevitably because of this legislation, how are schools expected to cover the costs associated with legal fees, review committees, training, or repper cycling acquisitions and removals? How will schools be expected to defend educators, especially school librarians, who are targeted by complaints? Without these protections, staff could face criminal liability simply by doing their jobs. This creates fear and not safety. And how does censorship improve literacy outcomes?

223. 0:50:35

     Our students need access to diverse, affirming, development, developmentally appropriate literature to grow as readers and as human beings. And when you add fear to that, it dictates what is available on shelves. The children eventually suffer. And so for that reason, I join my colleagues in opposing this bill.

224. 0:50:55

     I had to address this last night. No video recording if we haven't given permission before. Channel 2 Action News had already cleared it with our office, so just wanted to point that out. So it's publicly broadcast. You can look it up on YouTube afterwards. Um, so anyways, I had to address that real quick. Uh, number 14. Representative Holly.

225. 0:51:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, spent a lot of time on this. Um, I'd like to first say I'm grateful that, uh, s- Senator Burns actually heeded a lot of the, uh, requests to have the bill edited down, provided several immunities that I was really pleased to see added yesterday, um, or at least as it was presented yesterday, um, to allow for, uh, librarians to at least be able to acknowledge that if they had not known, um, that they were actually having harmful materials, being that, you know, some libraries actually carry hundreds of thousands of, uh, articles there.

226. 0:52:15

     Um, I am concerned, um, that this amendment, which places the responsibility fully on the decisions of a governing authority, uh, might overrule, um, the opportunities provided, uh, for those librarians to exercise, um, again, I think some Pretty clear immunities. Um, I do think that this measure, while I know of the criminal code is, is, uh, particularly when you're looking to actually thwart any particular type of sex crime, um, is very useful, uh, for people that we often think are the, kind of the dregs of society, those who are, who are really preying, um, on the sensitivities of our children, of the people that we find most vulnerable in our communities.

227. 0:53:11

     I think that, um, you know, perhaps maybe in addressing this, maybe perhaps a bill could have presented as I've seen it prior, where maybe there's, uh, some exceptions to the sovereign immunity that counties and cities sometimes, uh, will have to protect their employees, um, that perhaps it could be done through, uh, a, a civil, uh, um, address through legislation. Um, the only reason that, uh, one of the main reasons why I can't support this bill is I know that while we can consider some immunities, some very plausible defenses of that librarians will be able to give in court, I know that when this charge comes up on GCIC, when they try to apply for a job somewhere,

228. 0:54:11

     the person hiring, oftentimes they look just at that initial offense. And while we are not yet living in a society that fully will grant some exoneration and give people this second chance, um, because I think we cherish our children, sometimes when we see that there's a crime, um, against their children, um, that just the general assumption, um, from the very outset, uh, will link them to, uh, kind of our general view of people that, uh, we find to be completely abhorrent.

229. 0:54:51

     And, uh, while they may be able to defend themselves and get cleared, um, to lose their license, uh, to be able to practice their, what I believe is, is a, a very passionate but sometimes a thankless and, uh, and minimally salary, a salary job, uh, is unfortunately, uh, really just bar them from being able to gain the respect that most librarians seek, uh, to possess. So I appreciate your efforts. I am not quite happy with this.

230. 0:55:23

     Um, but, um, uh, I, I agree with, uh, Ms. Asiago, there's many days left. Um, hopefully this bill can be improved through the process. Thank you.

231. 0:55:37

     All right. Number four, Representative Neal.

232. 0:55:40

     Thank you to the Chair. I'll be brief. Uh, so, uh, people rely on this committee to, um, put out legislation that takes the worst of the worst, uh, hardened criminals, um, off of the streets. Um, and I, I always pride myself, especially 'cause when it comes to this committee as compared to m- many, um, we always do good work out of here. Um, and I think that's a testament to the people on this body and the people that trust this body and the people in this room. Um, although I didn't realize there was chaos and discontent in the libraries at this point, um, it is unfortunate that we are here today.

233. 0:56:16

     So for me, I submit, uh, to this committee. Um, and I challenge this committee to return at the appropriate time, um, and fix this moment if and when it results in unintended consequences. Um, 'cause I just, I, I don't think this is the way. There's a way, uh, but I don't know if this is the way. So with that, Mr. Chair, that's all I got.

234. 0:56:41

     Okay. Number 16. Chair McCro.

235. 0:56:45

     Yes, sir. This is the, the, the lesser handsome half of the duo over there.

236. 0:56:55

     Um, to, to my colleague's, uh, point just a second ago, Representative Holly, um, as far as it showing up on a GCIC report for employment, actually, that doesn't show up on an employment GCIC report unless there is a conviction. So when you run a GCIC report or a background check, uh, using the employment code for that GCIC search, it doesn't show up on there if, uh, if there's no conviction for that charge. So, um, that concern hopefully can be alleviated. Uh, and it sounded like to me almost that he was saying that the bill was better before we had this amendment, and this amendment was brought by a very astute member, uh, of a library, um, who brought essentially this same language that this amendment portrays now.

237. 0:57:43

     So I'm somewhat confused because I thought they liked the amendment yesterday as we were talking about it, um, the ones who were opposing this. I thought they were somewhat in favor of this because it was brought from the library community, and now we have it, and it seems that they're saying that it's worse now than it was before. So, um, I think that, that either of these provide a good amount of immunity and help to solve an issue that, uh, some people have with children accessing materials they shouldn't access. And, uh, I, I appreciate everybody working on it.

238. 0:58:14

     I think we have done a lot of work to try to improve the bill.

239. 0:58:20

     I'm gonna let the last one be Vice Chairman Holland.

240. 0:58:23

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, so I grew up in the library because I didn't know English, and so I- and I've served on the Gwinnett County Library Foundation for many years. So this has nothing to do with whether we like our libraries, whether we don't like our librarians. Um, I I think we've lost the focus and the intent, which is to protect the innocence of our children.

241. 0:58:53

     And I think that is the point, not whether who is looking at what to make decisions on what is good, what is not. I think we've worked very hard on this bill, Senator, um, to make sure that we've addressed the concerns of many, um, including the librarians and having a barrier to make sure that whatever board of trustee or whatever authority there is, is, is there to give them direction.

242. 0:59:28

     Um, but again, let's not forget, uh, uh, this is about making sure that our minors are not exposed to harmful materials, many that we've seen, um, evidence of in the several committee meetings that we've had. And so, um, again, thank you, Senator. Thank you to so many of you all for, um, giving your, um, your comments and your suggestions. We have, as a committee on both sides, I think that we have, um, really listened and really went through our emails, our calls to, to look at how to make this bill as best as we can, and I believe that we have that right now.

243. 1:00:15

     And so therefore, um, I hope that we can get this passed today. Thank you.

244. 1:00:21

     Okay. Thank you, members, for sticking around on a Friday. Uh, it was not my wishes to have to keep you, uh, again on Friday after session ends. So, uh, got a motion and a second on the bill as amended. And just so we know, we were working off of LC 48 906S with the Hong amendment. I got a motion and a second.

245. 1:00:52

     All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. Uh, do, uh, I'll do a show of hands. Uh, those opposed?

246. 1:01:07

     All those in favor?

247. 1:01:11

     Uh, chair votes yes. We are adjourned.

248. 1:01:15

     Thank you.