Showing posts with label K.S.A. 21-6402. Show all posts
Showing posts with label K.S.A. 21-6402. Show all posts

Sunday, March 29, 2026

Kansas Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act-A Proposal for Common Sense and Informed Consent

Parents are sick of finding out what their kids have seen after it's too late.  

Legislators, the time for half-measures is over. Kansas must pass strong legislation for all public libraries and school materials containing sexually explicit content. No blanket bans. No viewpoint discrimination. Just parents deciding for their own children.

Public libraries and schools are stocking graphic sexual content — explicit illustrations and detailed descriptions of sexual acts — and handing it straight to minors with zero barriers. Both public institutions have policies that state "parents are responsible" while deliberately creating an environment that makes responsible parenting impossible.



Kansas Law Is Strong, But Leaves Gaps for Schools and Libraries

Kansas already prohibits the promotion of material “harmful to minors” under K.S.A. 21-6402 in commercial settings. K.S.A. 21-6401 uses the same definitions and prohibits promotion of obscenity to minors in schools and libraries, however both simply adopt American Library Association style open-access rules, then claim legal cover. The result? Unrestricted browsing, self-checkout of adult books at any age, and eye-level displays of graphic content — while parents are told “you are responsible.”

This is what you see on the cover...

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg)

A bright, cartoonish cover with smiling characters and playful fonts gives parents the false impression that the book is innocent and age-appropriate. There are no warnings, no age stickers, no content labels. 


Placement in the library is perceived by most parents as guidance on what their child could safely read.

It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly)

Public Library Books Instructing Children How to Masturbate on the Shelf for Kindergartners



There's nothing on the cover to alert a parent that graphic sexual illustrations and explicit descriptions await their child, including masturbation, genital touching, anal sex, oral sex, and encouragement to experience sexual pleasure.

But this is what your child sees inside...

It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly)

Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg)








It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly)
Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg)









Look at the text on each page--

Does it look to you like it's written for a first-grade reader?



Both of these books are in the Children's section in many public libraries in Kansas.

Would you know what is inside the book from looking at the cover? Even if you are only a few feet away, would you be able to see what your child has just seen?

How exactly are parents supposed to exercise that responsibility when the author and publisher deliberately hides the content behind comforting, child-friendly and inviting packaging? Even if the word "sex" is on the cover, when the book is in a pile of kids books, it doesn't really click as to what's inside because parents don't expect this content to be in the Children's section at the public library or in the school library.

That's intentional and deceptive.

This is not parental empowerment. This is a deliberate setup that makes real parental oversight impossible. They cannot pre-read every title on every shelf or every digital download from Sunflower eLibrary.


Parents cannot be expected to read every book in the library before their child looks at it.




But you know who can, don't you?

Regional library systems, public libraries and public schools across Kansas already use sophisticated AI-powered curation software every single day. Tools built into OverDrive/Libby, Follett Destiny, Baker & Taylor’s Title Source, and other common library management systems routinely scan thousands of titles for age-appropriateness, violence, language, and sensitive content. These AI systems flag books for “mature themes,” “sexual content,” “drug use,” and dozens of other categories in seconds.

There's no need to repeat the process, because publishers and editors have already reviewed all materials before the pages are printed. There's no secret being kept from the libraries or schools as to the content of the books children are given.

Only parents are expected to figure out what their child is going to be exposed to while everyone else involved already has the information.

That's called gaslighting.

Libraries and public schools are not incapable of curating the books that your children see based on content. They choose to base collection policies on subjective literary awards and marketing from publishers. Community Standards are not part of the process.

How exactly does that work?

Somehow parents are supposed to be able to know what is inside every book that their child picks up to look at, but the library-- with powerful AI tools and documented text review for all available literature in all of history-- is suddenly technologically helpless and cannot be expected to even identify sexually explicit materials.. Library Boards and School Boards approve policies that give children open access graphic sexual content while making it nearly impossible for parents to exercise their rights over their own children.

Right now, there is no pre-collection review process, no age-appropriate shelving, and no content warnings. Titles are ordered according to direction from publishers and marketing companies who are not required to follow Kansas law. This deliberate refusal to enforce or even consider 21-6401 and 21-6402 leaves children unprotected and forces parents into reactive, book-by-book fights after the fact.

Kansas law already has an religious opt-out in K.S.A. 72-3120 (which is an attendance statute) but it is narrow, reactive, and practically useless for library books or broad curriculum content. Parents must first discover the explicit material after their child has already seen it, then beg the school to excuse participation in a single ‘activity.’

That is not exercising parental rights — that is a game of parental Whack-A-Mole.

The Child Internet Protection Act (K.S.A. 75-2589) allows children to be exposed to adult materials hiding under the shell that houses the online library access at school since the CHIP act applies only to external websites on public computers.

Parents just have to wait for the ultimate "gotcha" moment, when the child sees something they are not ready for and innocence cannot be recovered. then jump through bureaucratic hoops and roadblocks, attend meetings, protest in writing, or stop going to the library entirely in order to protect their children.

If Parents are supposed to know what is in every book, then why is it too much to ask of the libraries?

Publishers, editors, public libraries and public schools all have the option use AI tools to identify sexually explicit material that meets the clear definitions already written in K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402, and voluntarily share that information with parents prior to the children being exposed to the materials so parents can decide what's best for their children.

No Laws Support Opposition to Parental Rights 

Publishers, booksellers, nor public schools/libraries have no authority to override parents fundamental rights to direct their children's education, upbringing and moral development.

    • Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents have a substantive due-process right (14th Amendment) to control their child's education and moral formation.
    • Ginsberg v. New York (1968): The Supreme Court explicitly upheld stricter "variable obscenity" standards for minors. States may prohibit sales/distribution of materials "harmful to minors" (e.g., nudity or sexual depictions appealing to prurient interest for kids) even if not obscene for adults. The Court rejected the argument that minors have the same "freedom to read" sexual content as adults, emphasizing parental authority and the state's interest in shielding children.  This case is cited frequently because the interpretation is it is not censorship to restrict children's exposure to sexually explicit materials.
    • K.S.A. 21-6402 "Harmful to Minors"  Kansas law defines “material harmful to minors” using the three-prong Miller test (adapted for minors from Miller v. California, 1973):

1.     Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors;

2.     Whether the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and

3.     Whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

    • K.S.A. 21-6401 "Promotion of Obscenity to Minors" uses the same definitions as 21-6402 and applies the Miller test to materials in libraries, and hold library boards responsible
    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (June 2025): The Court expanded this, holding that schools must accommodate parental opt-outs (under Free Exercise and due process) when curriculum implicates religious/moral objections to certain content (including LGBTQ+ themes). It rejected schools' attempts to override parental authority in the name of inclusivity or access.
    • K.S.A. 38-141 preserves parents fundamental rights to exercise primary control over the care and upbringing of their children in their charge. 
    • Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (457 U.S. 853, 1982) recent 5th Circuit rulings (2025) have narrowed Pico further, emphasizing that removal for vulgarity or unsuitability is permissible. Limits only removals motivated purely by disagreement with ideas (viewpoint discrimination). Affirmatively permits restrictions based on pervasive vulgarity, explicit sexual content, or educational unsuitability—the exact criteria Kansas law uses to protect minors. Leaves intact the state’s compelling interest in shielding children from material harmful to minors.

Books cannot be removed from libraries or schools just because someone doesn't like the content.

When an “idea” is conveyed through sexually explicit content that meets the K.S.A. 21-6401 definition (or the harmful-to-minors standard), access may be restricted in a school or library on the basis of being sexually explicit or consistently vulgar. Materials containing LGBTQ ideology but no sexually explicit content would be protected from removal under the current laws. If the restriction is to comply with state child-protection law and parental rights, it is constitutional under Pico. Courts routinely distinguish legitimate educational/child-protection motives from the pretext of ideological censorship.

In short:

  • Preventing exposure to obscenity/harmful-to-minors material—is expressly allowed by Pico’s own language and the dissents.
  • Pico does not create a constitutional right for students, parents, publishers, or educators to demand school-provided access to materials that Kansas law deems harmful to minors.
  • Schools/libraries remain bound by K.S.A. 21-6401/6402 and cannot be forced by Pico to violate those statutes or override parental authority.
Other States are Already Working on the Issue

Arizona’s opt-in law (HB 2495) (2022) requires public schools to identify qualifying materials and requires parental consent on a per-material basis. If consent is not secured, an alternative assignment that does not contain sexually explicit material must be offered. "All textual, visual, and audio materials or materials accessed via any other medium are prohibited from depicting sexual conduct, including acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts. Parental consent is required before materials referring to sexual excitement, meaning the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal and any content describing "ultimate sexual acts" meaning sexual intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy. A sexual act is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual activity that gives the appearance of consummation of ultimate sexual acts." 

There have been no successful legal challenges to this law. 

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 230 (introduced February 3, 2025) offers a proven, common-sense solution that actually puts parents back in charge. SB 230 amends the Pennsylvania Public School Code to require every public school entity (districts, charters, etc.) to create a clear parental-control policy for sexually explicit content. The bill does not ban books. Instead, it demands transparency and affirmative consent:
  • Mandatory identification: Schools must publicly list every instructional material and library book that contains “sexually explicit content.”
  • Opt-in consent form: No student can be given or allowed access to such material unless a parent or guardian signs and returns a specific opt-in form. The form must include the exact legal warning and a list of titles.
  • Advance lists: The form must include the specific titles and materials scheduled for use or available in the library that meet the definition.
  • Automatic alternatives: If a parent does not opt in (or fails to return the form), the child receives non-explicit alternative materials and activities with no academic penalty.
  • Parental review right: Parents can request to examine any qualifying material at any time.
  • Public input: Schools must hold a public forum before adopting the policy.

SB 230 is built on one clear theory: parents are the rightful gatekeepers. Schools must create a transparent policy, list every qualifying title, and use a specific opt-in form that cites the legal definition of “sexual conduct.” Parents can review the materials if they wish. It covers curriculum, handouts, and libraries alike.

The pending legislation is not vague nor overbroad. It is a straightforward mechanism that respects both parental rights and the First Amendment. The definitions are precise and track Kansas’s own statutes. This bill will empower parents without removing books and without running afoul of Pico.

This is common-sense protection that respects the reality every parent already knows: children explore open environments without knowing the risks or dangers that await them.

It's Time for Kansas to Solve the Problem

A Kansas version of PA SB 230 and AZ HB 2495 would fix this enforcement gap immediately. By requiring schools and libraries to identify every qualifying book in advance and obtain opt-in informed consent, the law would create a clear, enforceable record. Material that meets the Miller test for “harmful to minors” could no longer be quietly made available to children without parental permission.

A similar bill in Kansas would finally enforce our existing harmful-to-minors laws and give families the tools they need to exercise their fundamental responsibilities. Violations would trigger both the new transparency law and the existing criminal statutes — finally giving district attorneys and the Attorney General the tools they need to act.

This proposed bill creates a real, workable parental control mechanism that actually enforces existing harmful-to-minors laws (21-6401/21-6402) instead of leaving parents to fight reactive battles with limited tools. Public institutions would be accountable for using available tools to ensure that unexpected sexually explicit content will not be accessed by children unless parents are aware and give permission.

This would be far stronger than any existing legislation intended to restore Parent's Rights because it is:

  • Proactive — requires schools/libraries to identify sexually explicit materials in advance and get opt-in informed consent before exposure.
  • Broad — applies to both instructional materials and library books (physical and digital).
  • Clear — uses a standardized form with a list of titles to review and the statutory definitions.
  • Enforceable — ties compliance to the loss of the affirmative defense in K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402.

In summary, the proposal says:

Apply 21-6401 and 21-6401 before giving access to children and change the policy to require parental opt-in consent for any qualified materials, or lose the legal shield and face the consequences of violating Kansas law if sexually explicit materials are made accessible to children without parental consent.

It's that simple.

This legislation would resolve all battles over Reconsideration Requests and bizarre library policies that limit reconsideration to once every 5 years per title. If a parent doesn't want their child to read a certain book, they don't give permission.

No one is asking librarians to read every page of every book. This law would require them to use the very AI tools they already own and operate to flag the narrow category of sexually explicit content — using tools and abilities they already have.

This bill would end the charade. It does not remove books. It simply requires libraries and schools to identify sexually explicit materials in advance, give parents a clear list of the materials their child may see, an opt-in consent form, and provide non-explicit alternatives when consent is not given. For the first time, parents would actually have the information they need before their child sees the book — truly enabling them to do exactly what librarians have insisted is the parent’s job all along.

Library and School Boards have always had the power to protect children from sexually explicit content. If this proposed legislation becomes law, they will both have the legal responsibility.

Public Schools and Public Libraries are Co-Mingled

Kansas public schools and public libraries operate as a coordinated governmental network when they share student enrollment data to issue library accounts and grant minors access to sexually explicit materials — frequently on school computers and networks.

This data-sharing and account linkage constitutes joint state action. When students access library content through school-issued devices or school networks, the school actively facilitates and hosts the library’s materials. Under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) and Pico, the school bears responsibility for content delivered in its environment, including the public library materials made accessible to minors.

Both entities are bound by the same statutes:

  • K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402 (protecting minors from obscenity and harmful material), and
  • K.S.A. 38-141 (recognizing parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing and moral development).

The current practice of issuing library accounts from school records and allowing unrestricted access on school computers denies parents any meaningful notice or consent, directly violating K.S.A. 38-141.

Because schools and libraries function as one pipeline delivering content to Kansas children, the proposed legislation correctly treats them as a unified governmental system. Any material made available through a school-linked library account or on school premises must be subject to identification, parental notification, and opt-in consent. This is not an expansion of the law — it is a necessary recognition of the existing coordinated reality and enforcement of established Kansas statutes and parental rights.

The legislature has both the authority and the duty to close the loophole schools and libraries claim, that 21-6402 does not apply to them when the definitions are clearly present and nearly identical in 21-6401, which does apply to libraries. The library cannot evade these standards by labeling itself “separate” when the delivery mechanism is inside the school environment.



The First Amendment Is Upheld

Critics call attempts to curate by age-appropriateness “censorship.” The opposite is true. Opt-in consent is the least restrictive way to protect minors while preserving full access for adults and consenting parents. The court determined that the state may shield children from material that is not obscene for adults. School and library collections are government speech. It follows Ginsberg v. New York (1968) in which Justice Brennan wrote that "obscenity was not within the area of protected speech or press."

Children cannot have a constitutional right to view sexually explicit or mature content materials when those materials are not within the area of protected speech in the first place. 

All materials are readily available to adults, and no public institution is required to provide any particular title or material.

So if the authors rights to Free Speech are not suppressed, and Children do not have the constitutional right to access sexually explicit materials, then whose 1st Amendment Rights are allegedly being violated?

The Freedom to Read from the ALA Bill of Rights is not a right at all. It's a policy suggestion. It's not law, it's not enforceable, and ignoring it violates no one's rights. It cannot override parents rights, Kansas Law, and children's rights to be protected from materials harmful to them.

An Opt-in system guarantees informed consent. Opt-in consent is milder than removal — it leaves books on the shelf for consenting families. No viewpoint is suppressed.


A Proposal to the Kansas Legislature


AN ACT concerning public libraries and schools; relating to the protection of childhood innocence and parental responsibility; requiring identification of and parental opt-in consent for sexually explicit materials; amending K.S.A. 21-6401, K.S.A. 21-6402 and K.S.A. 12-1225; requiring the Kansas State Library Handbook to address this act; and repealing the library affirmative-defense loophole in certain circumstances.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act.

Section 2. Legislative Findings and Purpose. The legislature finds that: (a) Parents possess the fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing, education, and moral development of their children, as recognized by K.S.A. 38-141 and long-standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court; (b) Children do not possess a constitutional right to access sexually explicit materials; (c) Public libraries and schools act in a governmental capacity and must prevent accidental exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials that are in view or within reach of children in any physical or digital setting; (d) Pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6401 and K.S.A. 21-6402, adults in positions of authority in public institutions have a statutory duty to protect children from the promotion of obscenity and material harmful to minors by taking affirmative steps to shield minors from such content; and (e) The purpose of this act is to require transparent identification of and affirmative parental consent for any sexually explicit material while preserving access for consenting parents and upholding the First Amendment rights of adults.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in this act: (a) “Sexually explicit material” means any book, publication, digital resource, display, illustration, or other material that: (1) contains visual or written depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct as defined in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(2); or (2) meets the definition of material harmful to minors under K.S.A. 21-6402(b). (b) “Sexual conduct” has the meaning ascribed thereto in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(2). (c) “Harmful to minors” has the meaning ascribed thereto in K.S.A. 21-6402(b). (d) “School entity” means any public school, school district, charter school, or school library. (e) “Library entity” means any public library, regional library system, or library consortium operating under Kansas law. (f) “Digital material” means any material made available to a child through an online account, catalog, application, or digital platform tied to a public library entity, school entity, or government-issued library or school credential, including but not limited to consortium-shared resources such as Sunflower eLibrary.

Section 4. Policy Requirements for All Library and School Entities. (a) The governing body of every library entity and school entity shall develop and publicly post a written policy, after reasonable public notice and opportunity for comment at a public forum, that: (1) directly identifies all sexually explicit materials that are in view or within reach of children in any physical area of the facility or in any digital material accessible through an online account tied to a government entity; (2) requires written parental consent before any minor may access or view such materials; and (3) provides non-explicit alternative materials or assignments when consent is not given.

(b) The policy shall include a standard opt-in consent form that states: “By signing this document I am giving permission for my child to be provided books, handouts and instructional material that may include written or visual depictions of sexual conduct. Sexual conduct is defined in law as acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if the person is a female, breast.”

(c) The opt-in form shall include a list of the specific book titles and materials that meet the definition of sexually explicit content and are scheduled to be used as part of curriculum, class discussion, or available within the library, school, or through any online account.

(d) The policy shall permit the parent or legal guardian of a student to review any instructional materials or library books containing sexually explicit content upon request.

(e) If the parent or legal guardian does not give permission or has not submitted a completed opt-in form, the child shall be provided with alternative non-explicit instructional materials and related activities.

(f) Consistent with the duty of adults under K.S.A. 21-6401 and K.S.A. 21-6402 to protect children from obscenity and material harmful to minors, all adults working in or supervising areas accessible to children shall take affirmative steps to prevent accidental exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials. Parents shall be notified of the materials prior to a child’s potential exposure through the opt-in mechanism. This requirement applies to all digital materials made available through any online account tied to a government entity.

Section 5. State Library Handbook Requirement. The State Library of Kansas shall revise the Kansas Public Library Handbook to address and incorporate the requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act. No policy, guidance, or handbook issued by the State Library may rely upon or incorporate any private organization’s standards or recommendations that conflict with the provisions of this act.

Section 6. Amendment to K.S.A. 21-6401. K.S.A. 21-6401 is hereby amended to read as follows: … (g) The affirmative defense provided in subsection (g)(2) shall not apply to any library entity or school entity that fails to comply with the policy requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act or that relies upon conflicting guidance from any private organization in a manner that violates this act.

Section 7. Amendment to K.S.A. 21-6402. K.S.A. 21-6402 is hereby amended to read as follows: … (c) The affirmative defense provided in subsection (c)(2) shall not apply to any library entity or school entity that fails to comply with the policy requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act or that relies upon conflicting guidance from any private organization in a manner that violates this act.

Section 8. Amendment to K.S.A. 12-1225. K.S.A. 12-1225 is hereby amended to add a new subsection: (e) Each library board shall adopt policies consistent with the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act and shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by library staff and any consortium in which the library participates. No library board may adopt or maintain any policy that incorporates or defers to private organizational guidelines that conflict with this act.

Section 9. Effective Date. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book and shall apply to the 2026-2027 school year and library fiscal year.


Common Sense in the Spotlight

Parents have the right — and the responsibility — to shield their children from sexually explicit material. Public libraries and schools must stop pretending they have no role in making that possible.

Public institutions that refuse to provide lists, warnings, or consent procedures are not respecting parental rights — they are obstructing them.

Public institutions have the resources to review millions of pages of text and images in a matter of minutes for any materials that have potential for curation. Parents do not have that ability.

Parents cannot exercise their responsibilities when they don’t know what the material contains until their child has already seen it.

Current Kansas law uphold parent's rights and responsibility over their children. Library policies state that Parents are responsible for what their children see at the library.

Kansas Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act will finally make that responsibility possible.

Share this blog post. Tag your legislators. Ask them to introduce and pass the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act in the 2026 session.


The fight for our children’s innocence rests with Topeka with one bill that could change everything.



Parents are no longer asking for permission to protect their children.




K.S.A. 72-3120 "Parent's Rights"
The Child Internet Protection Act (K.S.A. 75-2589)
ALA Bill of Rights
—
URL of this page: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2026/03/kansas-childhood-innocence-and-parental.html



Follow Kelly on X:

Follow Dan on X:



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 15, 2026

Public Library Books Instructing Children How to Masturbate on the Shelf for Kindergartners

Request for Reconsideration Led to 
Relocation in Children's Section 

"Like other holes in the body, the anus
is usually very sensitive, which means it
can feel good to touch but can also hurt
if we are rough with it" (p. 63)
Sex is a Funny Word (Cory Silverberg) 

p. 64 shows "grown up" clitoris and vulva in 
a book in the Children's section

The process began with a standard reconsideration request under the Hays Public Library's Objections to Books or Materials Policy. I asked for a sexually explicit book to be placed in the Adult section or in a future Parenting section. The book, Sex is a Funny Word (Cory Silverberg) was on the shelf in the Young Adult section, accessible to 9 years old and up. 

After working through the reconsideration process, the request was denied. The Director then took action and moved it to Children's section of the library—exposing preschoolers and early elementary grade students browsing open shelves near computers and play areas to pages and pages of instructions and encouragement to masturbate, intended as sex education for children too young to read the text or understand the illustrations. 

I appealed the Director's denial to the Board of Directors per library policy. After nearly an hour in Executive session and a statement by the Board attorney, the Board Chair asked if anyone wanted to appeal the Director's decision to place this book in the Children's section. 

The silence was deafening

The board denied the appeal by sitting in total silence, some looking at the table and some staring straight ahead. .By doing so, the board assumed responsibility for the new placement of Sex is a Funny Word in the Children's section at the Hays Public Library. 

In the December meeting where I made my appeal to the Board, some members did speak up during discussion. One member asking "Why did we put this book in the Children's section?" The Director responded "That's where it is in some other libraries." The Mayor stated "How can we know which books are ok" and "maybe we need to get some professionals in here to help decide which books are ok?" In this meeting, total silence. 

The copyright page of the book shows that the title is for ages "7-10," however there is no objective criteria that the publisher is required to follow when making that determination. The library then relies on the publisher's designation to defend placement of the book, completely ignoring Community Standards as required by Kansas law (Read more about the Policy Shell Games here) and common sense when it comes to exposing children to mature themes. 

This was not neutral curation. The director had the option to maintain status quo by denying the request for reconsideration and leaving the book where it was. Instead, action was taken, Choosing the youngest patron section possible in total disregard for the book's content including graphic descriptions and illustrations of sexual organs, encouragement of masturbation, and presentation in a colorful illustrated format appealing to prurient curiosity for children. 

There's more....

It's Perfectly Normal is not normal in the Children's section
"It's Perfectly Normal" (Robie H. Harris, Michael Emberley) is also on the shelf in the Children's section at HPL, where little kids can go right from Dora The Explorer and books about dinosaurs to looking at these illustrations alongside text that is clearly written for much older readers. 

The text has much of the same verbiage as Sex is A Funny Word, but with even more detail and graphic descriptions of how "after a bit, a person's vagina becomes moist" and "after a bit, a person's penis becomes erect."                 

This book in the Children's section lists different kinds of intercourse, including vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse.  The intention of       these two titles is sex education, but the placement 

in a section where children who 

cannot read the material negates any educational value of the materials.

The industry standard for a child's book is 32 pages, in part because a parent has to read to the book to the child and the child's attention span is well researched and limited. "It's Perfectly Normal" has 128 pages, and Sex is a Funny Word has 157 pages. Books of this length are not typically provided for reading to a child, and both of these books are written to appeal to those above the age range for the Children's section.                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Hays Public Library is not the only library intentionally placing books like this in the Children's section. Libraries all across the State of Kansas are placing the books in the same area and fighting to keep them there.                

WHY?

What does Kansas law say?

Obscenity to Minors Under K.S.A. 21-6401

K.S.A. 21-6401 defines "obscene" via the three-prong Miller v. California test (1973).The test looks at the whole work (not just one part). It uses local community standards (not national ones) for the first two parts.  Kansas laws (like K.S.A. 21-6401 on promoting obscenity and K.S.A. 21-6402 on material harmful to minors) build directly on this Miller test to define and regulate obscene or harmful content, especially to kids.

Any material is "obscene" if all three prongs are met:

(A) The average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

What is the intention of these excerpts from Sex is a Funny Word?

  • pg 25: "Sex is something people can do to feel good in their bodies"                               → Introduces sex primarily as a source of physical pleasure.
  • pg 28: "Part of sex is feeling joy and pleasure."                                                                → Reinforces pleasure as central to sex.
  • pg 46: "If I could be naked all the time I would"                                                                 → Normalizes desire for constant nudity.
  • pg 48: "Some people love the feeling of being naked. When you are naked you can see and touch your body without clothes getting in the way."                                                  → Links nudity directly to unrestricted touching and visual pleasure.
  • pg 60: "Some nipples are sensitive, and some are not. Nipples can feel very good to touch" (with illustrations labeled kids and grown-ups)                                                       → Explicitly states that touching nipples feels "very good."
  • pg 61: "Like nipples, some people's breasts are sensitive and can feel good when they are touched" (illustrations of kids and grown-ups)                                                             → Extends pleasure claim to breasts, including children's bodies.
  • pg 62: "Like other holes in the body, the anus is usually very sensitive, which means it can feel good to touch but can also hurt if we are rough with it" (illustrations)                  → Describes anal touching as potentially pleasurable, normalizes that touching may be "rough."
  • pg 64: "The clitoris can be very sensitive, and touching it can feel warm and tingly" (illustrations of vulva/clitoris/vagina)                                                                                  → Describes clitoral stimulation as producing pleasurable sensations.
  • pg 66: "Like the clitoris, the penis can be very sensitive, and touching it can feel warm and tingly" (illustrations of penises, some erect)                                                               → Describes penile stimulation as pleasurable, with visual depictions of erection.
  • pg 107: "You may have discovered that touching some parts of your body, especially the middle parts, can make you feel warm and tingly. Grown-up call this kind of touch masturbation. Masturbation is when we touch ourselves, usually our middle parts, to get that warm and tingly feeling."                                                                                            → Explicitly defines and normalizes masturbation as a pleasurable self-touching activity.
  • pg 108: "When you were younger, you may have discovered that it felt good to touch yourself. You may have done this even when you weren't alone."                                    → Suggests masturbation can occur in non-private (that means PUBLIC) settings and feels good.
In Summary for the 1st Prong (A)

Taken as a whole, the book Sex is a Funny Word repeatedly frames sexual body parts and self-touching as sources of pleasure ("feel good," "warm and tingly," "very good to touch"). Illustrations of children's and adults' genitals, nipples, breasts, and anus reinforce this focus. This emphasis on sexual pleasure could be found to appeal to prurient (shameful/morbid) interest in sex. Books intended for education do not typically focus on pleasure in this way.

B) the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has patently offensive representations or descriptions of:
(i) Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse or sodomy; or (ii) masturbation, excretory functions, sadomasochistic abuse or lewd exhibition of the genitals; and..



In Summary for the 2nd Prong (B)
  • pg 60–66: Detailed descriptions and illustrations of touching nipples, breasts, anus, clitoris, and penis, with statements that these areas "can feel very good" or "warm and tingly" when touched.
  • pg 107–108: Explicit definition and normalization of masturbation as touching "middle parts" to achieve pleasurable "warm and tingly" feelings, including the suggestion that children may have done this publicly when younger.
  • Comic Book Style Illustrations: Labeled drawings of children's and adults' genitals (penis, vulva, clitoris), nipples, breasts, and anus—some showing erection or sensitivity focus.
The material contains patently offensive representations and descriptions of masturbation and lewd exhibition of the genitals (detailed illustrations and positive framing of touching private parts for pleasure). In Ellis County, Kansas, such explicit depictions and encouragement to masturbate in a book for very young children would likely be viewed as patently offensive. Publishers assume parental involvement or guidance during the reading or viewing of sexual education materials, which would require age-restricted check outs or placement in a Parenting section.
(C) taken as a whole, a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value;
(2) "material" means any tangible thing which is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound or other manner;

In Summary for the 3rd Prong (C)
  • The book is presented as educational (sex education, body positivity, boundaries), but the excerpts focus heavily on pleasure from touching genitals, masturbation, and nudity rather than purely biological or safety-focused information.
  • For the target audience of the children's section, detailed pleasure-based discussions of masturbation and genital sensitivity lack serious educational value. These passages go beyond basic anatomy into explicit arousal descriptions.
  • The illustrations of children's genitals and statements normalizing childhood masturbation ("when you were younger, you may have discovered...") could be seen as lacking serious value for very young children who could only be toddlers or Kindergartners in younger years.

The pleasure-centric focus on masturbation and genital touching, described using words like "clitoris" and "anus" could lead a reasonable person to find that—taken as a whole—the book lacks serious educational value for children especially when considering that some of age ranges viewing books in the children's section are not old enough to read the book at all, let alone be mature enough for the content. The prurient emphasis outweighs any redeeming value for preschoolers and early elementary ages.

Reckless = Disregard for Substantial Risk

K.S.A. 21-6401. 

Promoting obscenity; promoting obscenity to minors. (a) Promoting obscenity is recklessly: (1) Manufacturing, mailing, transmitting, publishing, distributing, presenting, exhibiting or advertising any obscene material or obscene device;

(2) possessing any obscene material or obscene device with intent to mail, transmit, publish, distribute, present, exhibit or advertise such material or device;

(3) offering or agreeing to manufacture, mail, transmit, publish, distribute, present, exhibit or advertise any obscene material or obscene device;

(b) Promoting obscenity to minors is promoting obscenity, as defined in subsection (a), where a recipient of the obscene material or obscene device or a member of the audience of an obscene performance is a child under the age of 18 years.

The statute requires only "recklessness"—disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct will promote obscenity to minors. 

(e) Evidence that materials or devices were promoted to emphasize their prurient appeal shall be relevant in determining the question of the obscenity of such materials or devices. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person promoting obscene materials or obscene devices did so knowingly or recklessly if:

(1) The materials or devices were promoted to emphasize their prurient appeal;

The book's repeated emphasis on how touching genitals, nipples, breasts, anus, and masturbation produces pleasurable sensations ("feel good," "warm and tingly," "very good") constitutes promotion emphasizing prurient appeal.

With this action, the disregard for risk was obvious. The book was moved from a section for teenagers to a section for Elementary students and pre-school ages. By placing it in the Children's section rather than simply denying the reconsideration request and keeping it in Young Adult (reserving access for older minors while shielding younger ones), the Director showed knowing disregard for the substantial risk of escalated exposure to children by promoting the book to an audience even more likely to experience that prurient appeal defined in Kansas law.  The board's denial of appeal ratified this choice, showing collective disregard for the now increased risk of exposure to even younger children, including Pre-K. 

In Ellis County—in a conservative Kansas community—graphic depictions of sexual organs and masturbation in a children's book would offend prevailing standards.

"Educational" claims crumble for preschoolers: no serious value justifies exposing 4-year-olds to mature sexual concepts.

Legal Definitions in Multiple Statutes 

Support Consistent Interpretation 

During public statement, the library's attorney stated that K.S.A. 21-6402 (Harmful to Minors) does not apply to libraries, meaning that any criminal prosecution could not use that statute as a basis. That is correct, however a more protective and productive clarification would have included the overlap in definitions with K.S.A. 21-6401.  

The definitions in the Harmful to Minors statute (K.S.A. 21-6402) overlay heavily with the Promotion of Obscenity to Minors statute (K.S.A. 21-6401) and help interpret what counts as prohibited content under the broader, non-commercial latter statue that does apply to libraries. By disregarding the intention and spirit of the legal definitions included in K.S.A. 21-6402, the attorney may have missed an opportunity to educate the Board and Director, as well as the public, regarding the statute that shares those definitions and the policy requirements in following the law with regard to promoting obscenities to minors. 

K.S.A. 21-6402's definitions flow into K.S.A. 21-6401's analysis—helping establish that content like these books about masturbation and genital-pleasure sections could be "obscene" for younger ages in a non-commercial setting like a public library. That overlap strengthens any recklessness argument under 21-6401(b) and weakens the library's conditional defense if policies don't adequately restrict access.

The shared concepts are almost identical: prurient appeal, patently offensive sexual depictions (including masturbation and lewd exhibition of genitals), and lack of serious value. Material that are obscene under 21-6401 (full Miller test) will always qualify as "harmful to minors" under 21-6402's variable standard (inspired by Ginsberg v. New York).

Courts interpreting K.S.A. 21-6401 can look to 21-6402's definition as persuasive guidance for what Kansas considers "patently offensive" or lacking value to minors. The explicit pleasure-focused language and illustrations of sexual organs in the excerpts (e.g., masturbation defined as touching "middle parts" for "warm and tingly" feelings, genital sensitivity resulting in sexual pleasure, public masturbation) make it easier to argue that Sex is a Funny Word and It's Perfectly Normal meet K.S.A. 21-6401's stricter obscenity test when made accessible to young children.

No one has to prove it would harm small children to see these books

Kansas courts have never required "scientifically certain" proof of harm for such laws to apply, in line with Ginsberg v. New York, 1968.  A reasonable belief in risk suffices. Placing explicit material in the Elementary school section ignores that risk entirely and robs parents of any choice over what their children see at the public library.

The policies of the library make it very difficult for parents to exercise the responsibility they are entitled to, both in the Community and by law. 

The library policy states that children younger than 9 years old must have a parent or legal guardian present, but that means that a daycare provider can bring in 5 or 6 children under the age of 8 after school and it's not realistic that one adult can see what the children are seeing when excitedly browsing through books, expecting turtles flying space ships but seeing a drawing of erect penis instead. 

The Public Library policy is that all ages have access to all materials, because to do otherwise would be censorship, but that's not accurate

In Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York law which established the concept of "variable obscenity"—material can be regulated differently for children than for adults. The ruling affirmed the state's power to protect minors' welfare and support parental authority in child-rearing, without invading protected First Amendment expression for adults or minors in a way that amounts to censorship.

The Court held that the restriction was constitutionally permissible because it targeted only minors and did not interfere with adults' rights to obtain or distribute the material.

In short, the case stands for the idea that narrowly tailored limits on minors' access to sexually explicit (but not fully obscene-for-adults) material are not impermissible censorship—they serve compelling state interests in child protection. This reasoning has influenced later laws on "harmful to minors" materials, including in Kansas where the definitions of obscene materials in K.S.A. 21-6401 Promotion of Obscenity to Minors are cross-referenced with K.S.A. 21-6402 Harmful to Minors


Why are these books in the Children's section?

If a book is in a section where the children are too young to be educated by it, and it's not censorship to move it, why is it there?

Moving books with illustrations of sexual organs and descriptions of sexual activity to a parenting section would show the library's commitment to:

  • Alignment with Parental Authority: The U.S. Supreme Court in Ginsberg v. New York (1968) affirmed that "parents' claim to authority in the rearing of their children is basic in our society" and that states (and by extension, public institutions) may enact reasonable measures to support parents in discharging that responsibility (390 U.S. at 639). The Court emphasized that while ideal supervision of children's reading is left to parents, "the knowledge that parental control or guidance cannot always be provided and society's transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children justify reasonable regulation" (id. at 640). Variable standards for minors' access to sexually explicit materials are not censorship but a way to reinforce parental discretion.
  • Practical Support for Existing Policy: Hays Public Library's Parent’s Guide and Service Policy already place responsibility for guiding children's exposure on parents/guardians. Moving the books to a Parenting section (Adult) would allow parents to be more responsible for what their children view in the library and prevent accidental access which opens the library up to scrutiny in application of obscenity standards by Kansas law. 
  • Community Standards and Precedents: In Ellis County and similar Kansas communities, concerns about young children's unsupervised access to explicit illustrations (e.g., couples in sexual positions or pleasure-focused descriptions of genital touching) are common. Other libraries have successfully implemented similar relocations, restricted access, or parental-consent mechanisms for sensitive topics without violating intellectual freedom principles. Moving sex education books to a Parenting section maintains open access while addressing developmental appropriateness for children, consistent with expert guidance on delaying detailed sexual content.
  • No Impact on Intellectual Freedom: The books would not be removed, restricted for adults/older patrons, or labeled as "banned." This respects the Library Bill of Rights while honoring the Court's view in Ginsberg that such targeted supports for parents are constitutional and beneficial.
If the books are supposed to be educational, then they must be kept in a Parenting section where parents can decide at what age their child is ready for that topic.   
                          
Parents should be able to trust the library, not have to fight to protect their kids from it. 

"Constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in the rearing of their children is basic in our society, and the legislature could properly conclude that those primarily responsible for children's wellbeing are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility." Ginsberg v. New York P. 390 U. S. 639.

These books would not be considered offensive in a Parenting section where parents could decide when their child is ready for this information and images or the promotion of masturbation and sexual activity. In the Children's section, they are highly offensive and without any educational value because of the misplacement with regard to ages served in that area. 

Parents don't have to prove to the Library Board of Directors that the materials are offensive. The Library Board has to prove to parents that the library can be trusted to protect parent's rights to decide when their child is exposed to sexual materials. 

Kansas libraries are taxpayer-funded public institutions. Parents entrust them to actively protect children's moral development. Parents expect to exercise their own rights to decide what sexual materials their children will see and when they will see them. 

It defies common sense that books written and illustrated the way that these books are would be purposely placed in view of young children under the guise of "education" when many of the kids in that age group can barely read, and others are not old enough to read yet at all. 

It's not about whether a court of law would determined if the materials fail the Miller test. It shouldn't come to that, and it wouldn't come to that if Community standards were respected or even considered at all. 

When boards and directors completely disregard the exposure of young children to sexual materials—especially after formal challenge—they don't potentially violate just the statute, but the trust of families and the community as a whole. 


Sources cited:

Objections to Books or Materials Policy

Obscenity to Minors Under K.S.A. 21-6401

K.S.A. 21-6402 (Harmful to Minors)

Roth v. United States, 1957

Miller v. California, 1973)




—





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: 1205 Main St, Hays, KS 67601, USA
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)