Republicans across the nation have been actively engaged in a fierce battle to safeguard the innocence and well-being of children from individuals seeking to sexualize them. Successfully advocating for restrictions preventing schools or public libraries from providing explicit materials to children is seen as a significant victory for conservatives. Examples of inappropriate content disguised as LGBTQ inclusivity have been highlighted in the past, leading to parental outrage and opposition to schools and libraries making such materials accessible to their children.
While it may seem absurd that such a battle needs to be fought, the reality is that the radical left is persistently pushing to expose children to explicit content, vehemently opposing efforts to remove such materials from educational institutions. Recently, Democrats in New Jersey introduced Senate Bill 2421, named the “Freedom to Read Act,” which not only carves out an exemption for teachers and librarians from state obscenity laws but also grants them monetary compensation if criticized for their actions.
State Senators Andrew Zwicker and Teresa Ruiz are the primary sponsors of this controversial bill. The proposed amendment aims to modify state obscenity laws, making it an affirmative defense for teachers and librarians to distribute explicit material to minors while performing their duties. Essentially, the bill suggests that existing obscenity laws designed to protect children do not apply to educators. New Jersey’s definition of obscene material, as per current law, includes explicit depictions of anatomical areas or sexual activities in various forms, such as pictures, publications, sound recordings, live performances, or films.
The question arises: Why would teachers or librarians require legal protection for exposing children to obscene material? The bill not only provides such protection but also shields educators from potential job loss for refusing to remove explicit materials from schools, categorizing them as “members of a protected class” covered by anti-discrimination laws. The bill’s language makes no attempt to disguise its intentions, openly acknowledging its purpose of safeguarding teachers and librarians who present explicit content to children.
This legislation highlights a broader ideological clash between conservatives advocating for the protection of children’s innocence and the progressive agenda seeking to challenge traditional norms under the guise of inclusivity and freedom.
