RALEIGH – On Tuesday, a bill was introduced in the NC House to ensure that wholesome content is promoted in public schools. HB 636 would require every school district in the state to adopt a policy for the selection and procurement of library books, electronic media and other resources for school libraries, including the removal of books and media that no longer meets the criteria. Selection and removal of books will be based on eight criteria, including that the materials must be age appropriate and must not include descriptions or visual depictions of sexual activity or be pervasively vulgar.
The bill also requires school to screen donated materials and books sold at book fairs for explicit content. In order to allow parents more involvement in the book selection process, the bill sets up a process for books to be reviewed and for parents to object to books and offer feedback to the public school unit.
“Pornographic content is never appropriate in an educational setting. Exposure to sexually explicit material is devastating and traumatic for children, and it can have lasting psychological effects,” said Tami Fitzgerald, Executive Director of the NC Values Coalition. “This bill would put in place common-sense criteria to protect our children and ensure that the materials we provide them are appropriate for their developmental stage. Our schools should be places that nurture the development of young minds, not expose them to harmful material that robs them of their innocence.”
HB 636 provides additional remedies to parents against a public school unit that has violated the Parents Bill of Rights passed in 2023, which includes the book selection and removal provisions of the bill. New remedies provided to parents include:
(1) Declaratory relief.
(2) Injunctive relief.
(3) Damages of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.
(4) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
(5) Any other appropriate relief in the determination of the court.
The bill’s primary sponsors are Representatives Neal Jackson, Brian Biggs, David Willis, and Jennifer Balkcom.
Background
Pornography in schools is a problem across our state. In Wake County alone, 54 schools are reportedly using books that contain explicit sexual nudity and obscene content. Shockingly, only eight districts in the entire state currently consider obscenity and pervasive vulgarity when selecting materials for school libraries. Moreover, there is no system in place to screen donated materials or books sold at school book fairs for obscenity or vulgarity.
Parents across the political spectrum do not want porn in schools. A staggering 69% of voters believe that books containing pornography should be banned from public high school libraries. The concern deepens with younger students, as 79% of voters agree that such material should not be present in middle schools, and 85% say the same for elementary schools.
Make sure to include the bible since it talks about sexual assualts and incest.
1. It is not graphic in nature
2. It tells the TRUTH about how it is a sin.
3. It does not encourage it. It explains how it is against Gods will.
4. It is not tailored for young students to be indoctrined into a sinful life
YES!!!! Absolutely correct!!!
Objection to HB 636 – A Threat to Intellectual Freedom and Public Education
I strongly oppose HB 636. While it is being framed as a bill to protect children from inappropriate content, its language is dangerously vague, ideologically driven, and opens the door to widespread censorship in North Carolina public schools.
1. The bill is vague, subjective, and ideologically motivated.
Terms like “pervasively vulgar,” “pornographic,” and “age appropriate” are not clearly defined in the bill. They are open to broad interpretation and weaponization by political and ideological groups. What this really does is provide a legal tool for removing books that challenge certain viewpoints or that include content some adults personally disagree with—even if the books are appropriate, affirming, and educational.
This shift is not being driven by a concern for students’ academic development—it is being pushed by fear-based political movements aiming to control the narrative in schools. The targets of these efforts are often books about race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and other complex but vital topics.
2. Students don’t all read or learn at the same level.
Many students read above their grade level. A middle schooler reading at a high school level should be able to access advanced literature, just as struggling readers may require simpler material. Blanket restrictions ignore the diversity of student ability, interest, and maturity. Education should meet students where they are—not be reduced to the lowest common denominator to avoid offending a vocal minority.
3. This bill stifles intellectual development and curiosity.
It’s deeply upsetting to see public education take this turn after all these years. This is not progress, and it is not preparing children for the real world. Shielding students from literature that reflects real human experiences does not protect them—it limits them. It narrows their understanding of the world and sends a chilling message that certain topics are off-limits, even in a learning environment.
When I was in elementary school, we had access to National Geographic magazines that included photos of topless African women and indigenous cultures. Encyclopedias explained anatomy, reproduction, and birth. These resources were not considered scandalous—they were educational. They sparked curiosity, empathy, and discovery. That is what a library is supposed to be: a place where young minds can safely explore and grow.
4. It undermines librarians and existing safeguards.
Professional librarians are trained to select materials that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with educational standards. School libraries are already organized by age and reading level, and most districts already review materials carefully. HB 636 duplicates existing safeguards, adds bureaucracy, and invites over-correction and fear-driven decisions.
5. It violates First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court has made clear that students retain First Amendment rights in public schools (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969), and that libraries cannot remove books simply because they are unpopular or controversial (Board of Education v. Pico, 1982). HB 636 undermines these principles by enabling censorship based on personal discomfort rather than legal standards of obscenity or educational merit.
6. The punitive measures are extreme and chilling.
Threatening school districts with $5,000 fines, legal fees, and lawsuits will create an environment of fear. Educators and administrators may begin preemptively removing books to avoid risk—even if no clear violation exists. That’s not caution—it’s coerced censorship.
I firmly believe this bill will cause far more harm than good. It does not make children safer—it makes them less informed, less prepared, and less free. Libraries are supposed to be gateways to knowledge, not battlegrounds for political agendas. I urge lawmakers to reject HB 636 and stand up for the intellectual freedom, professional integrity, and future of public education in North Carolina.
“When I was in elementary school, we had access to National Geographic magazines that included photos of topless African women and indigenous cultures.”
That National Geographic magazine did not tell students that boys could be girls or girls could be boys. I was a tomboy growing up, I hated dolls and loved digging up worms so I could go fishing with my Dad. I never even thought about being anything other than a girl.
Thank goodness I am not a child now because democrats would try to change me into a boy. I am 53 now and I cannot understand how someone with the mental illness of “gender dysphoria” is allowed to influence children.
First, you completely shifted the focus away from the article and my response. It seems you’d rather pivot to gender dysphoria instead—which, by the way, we already discussed last week. Yes, gender dysphoria is recognized in the DSM-5, but not because being transgender is a mental illness. It’s listed due to the distress some people feel when their gender identity doesn’t align with their assigned sex at birth—a distress that can be serious and deserves compassion, support, and care.
These individuals aren’t looking to influence anyone—they’re simply trying to live their lives authentically, as they see fit. Democrats aren’t trying to “change” children. That’s a fear-based narrative, not reality.
And sincerely, I’m glad you have positive memories of your childhood and those moments fishing with your father. Everyone deserves that kind of peace in their life—trans kids included.
Shut the front door!
There is too much wind blowing.
When they actually have the Bible available to read in a public school it will be a blessing to the community! I wish it was more readily available
Sure, as long as the schools include other religious texts as well, including the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist scriptures, and even humanist or secular philosophies. Anything less would be religious favoritism, which has no place in public education.
need more info all around.
Is any sort of conflict in a book considered unwholesome?
What books are being considered pornography?
It’s the ploy to regulate what we can read. Pornography shouldn’t be in schools, and should be rid of the schools for sure. But they’re saying, “look in my right hand” while not revealing what’s in their left hand
Who decides this STUPIDITY? I swear politicians just care about pandering for votes. Yes included the bible for its hypocritical idol worshipping.
This is my second attempt at getting this posted here.
I strongly object to HB 636. While the bill claims to promote “wholesome” content in schools, it’s dangerously vague and opens the door to censorship based on ideology, not education. Terms like “pervasively vulgar” and “age appropriate” are subjective and can easily be twisted to remove books that deal with important, real-world issues like race, gender, and identity. The bill ignores the reality that many students read above their grade level and deserve access to challenging material.
When I was in elementary school, National Geographic featured topless African women and cultural stories that taught us about the world—not to shock, but to educate. Encyclopedias explained human anatomy and how babies are born. None of that was “pornographic”—it was part of learning. Libraries are supposed to be places of discovery, not sanitized spaces controlled by a vocal few.
This bill also undermines the work of trained librarians who already make careful decisions about age-appropriate materials and organize collections by grade level. On top of that, it threatens First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has made clear that students do not lose their right to access ideas just because they’re in school.
Finally, the bill’s $5,000 fines and legal penalties are extreme. They will only encourage schools to preemptively censor materials out of fear, even if those materials are completely appropriate. I firmly believe this bill will cause far more harm than good. It limits curiosity, punishes educators, and deprives students of the tools they need to grow into informed, open-minded adults. North Carolina deserves better.
I agree with Chris Johnson x 10000000 . Yall are just making up strawmen to fight. The myth of guys coming for your children is pervasive because it benefits those in power to keep us distracted and fighting each other.Stop with the propaganda. Please Lord Jesus give these busy bodies something to do.