The fight to keep inappropriate books out of the children’s section of the library continues. Last week in Arkansas, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law penalizing librarians who allow children to access highly inappropriate books.

This law is not a book ban. It is a call for proper decorum and discernment in the library when stocking books. The court is not saying that the library cannot have To Kill a Mockingbird. It is saying that explicit pornographic language and LGBTQ+ literature, even though it is written for kids, are not appropriate and therefore should not be available for innocent children to find in the kids’ and young adult sections.

Librarians who intentionally stock these books in these sections will be fined $10,000.

Last week’s appeals court ruling reverses a previous judge’s ruling. Three years ago, Chief Judge Timothy Brooks blocked the law, saying it infringed on First Amendment rights.

Demanding that librarians do a better job of curating books should not be controversial. We do not want Playboy magazine in the children’s section. We do not want our elementary schoolers or teens reading detailed descriptions of sex and violence. Children do not have the discernment of (most) adults; therefore, intentionally giving them inappropriate books in the hope of indoctrinating them into a particular worldview — or to destroy their innocence — is folly.

“I applaud the Eighth Circuit’s decision and its careful review of this case,” Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said after the verdict. “The court’s ruling allows Arkansas to move forward in enforcing a law that protects children from obscene materials while increasing accountability for public-library curation decisions.”

Angry activists in the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas called the action “censorship” and promised to fight so-called book bans.

John Adams, the ironically named attorney for the librarians affected by this law, said, “Libraries and bookstores should be places where people can freely explore ideas — not where booksellers and librarians face criminal liability for selling, checking out, or even just shelving constitutionally protected books.” He added, “The freedom to read is fundamental to a free society and has always been protected by the First Amendment. We remain committed to defending that principle. We are reviewing the court’s opinion carefully and evaluating all available legal options, including further review by the courts.”

As someone with a teaching background, I firmly believe in the power of books. Great literature has changed countless hearts and minds, and shaped history, including our nation’s own. However, the books being challenged by parents are not volumes like The Catcher in the Rye, Harry Potter, or The Lorax.* They are books like And Tango Makes Three, The Bluest Eye, and Gender Queer: A Memoir.

The tamest of the three is And Tango Makes Three; nevertheless, this picture book features “gay penguins” who hatch and nurture an orphaned baby penguin. The Bluest Eye deals with incest and the rape of a child in graphic, detailed accounts. Gender Queer: A Memoir is a graphic novel with illustrations of sex, masturbation, and how to use sex toys.

We often dwell on books and stories as we figure out life, and the Bible gives us advice about what we should dwell on. In Philippians 4:8, the Apostle Paul writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

Freedom without discernment is its own kind of prison, and those who have been placed in a position of curating books for children have a higher calling to pursue wisdom.

Arkansas is not the only state in which the fight over appropriate books for children is ongoing. In Texas, conservative activist Bonnie Wallace attended a Houston Independent School District board meeting to protest the book A Court of Silver Flames, which was available in school libraries. This popular adult romantasy contains graphic descriptions of sex and intimacy that are not appropriate for young readers.

When Wallace read a sultry scene aloud to the board, the members had her removed for reading inappropriate material (this has happened to parents at other school board meetings around the country). So, she isn’t allowed to read an erotic passage aloud at a school board meeting because it is inappropriate, yet it is completely fine to stock the book from which it came in high school libraries? The irony is utterly lost on these people. Wallace is now suing the school district.

Children are the constant victims of social engineering because leftists see freedom without discernment as the highest good. They do not have to deal with the aftermath of a child’s destroyed innocence. The bottom line is that parents and grandparents have to hold the line and must protect the spaces where kids choose to enrich their minds and imaginations.