Summary: House Bill 119 regulates the removal of books from public and school libraries.
Analysis: HB 119 is framed as protecting access to books, reflects a broader trend of mislabeling parental concerns about explicit content as “book banning” by groups like PEN America and the ALA. While the bill may prevent activist-led removals of wholesome material, it risks prioritizing unrestricted access over age-appropriate safeguards for children.
Calling someone a “book banner” is a serious accusation, yet organizations like the American Library Association (ALA) and PEN America use the term loosely to discredit parents and school officials who raise valid concerns about sexually explicit content in school libraries. Delaware’s proposed HB 119 reflects this flawed framing, requiring that challenged books remain accessible to children during review—prioritizing unrestricted access over age-appropriate content safeguards.
One potential benefit of HB 119 is that it may prevent the removal of wholesome, pro-life, or religious books flagged by activist groups. However, the bill’s sponsor has cited working with PEN America—an organization that distorts what qualifies as a “ban”—to prevent her own book from being removed in Maryland.
PEN and the ALA often exaggerate claims of censorship by counting books that are simply moved, require parental consent, or remain fully available. In truth, most books they label as “banned” are still accessible in school libraries. The few titles that are actually removed most often tend to contain sexually explicit or pornographic content, which raises legitimate concerns from parents about age-appropriateness.
Parents aren’t calling for censorship or criminal penalties; they’re seeking appropriate boundaries for minors. While HB 119 may appear neutral or protective, its origins and national context reveal a deeper agenda. It’s a bill that deserves close attention and careful public discussion
Before the bill passed, a number of amendments were filed in the House, only three of which passed. Those passed amendments do the following:
-
Rep. Griffith’s amendment removes Department of Corrections libraries from the definition of “public libraries.” Instead, these facilities are encouraged to collaborate with the Division of Libraries to implement specialized professional library services.
-
Rep. Yearick’s amendment clarifies that residents who pay a library district tax to support a municipal library have the right to submit objections to materials in that library.
-
Rep. Dukes’ amendment makes two key changes: it aligns the bill with Delaware’s drafting standards by replacing “should” with “may,” and it clarifies that nothing in the bill overrides existing state laws related to obscenity, including content considered harmful to minors.
This final amendment is especially important because it provides the statutory language needed to address books that are legally considered obscene, if and when the situation arises. The referenced section of Delaware Code defines obscenity in detail and includes a specific provision for material harmful to minors. It is harmful if there’s any description or depiction of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse. That definition also includes that which is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors.”
This last piece is arguably subjective, but the full defition is helpful towards helping the protection of minors.