NJ Democrats Protect “Freedom” to Give Obscene Material to Children

Democrat lawmakers in New Jersey just passed a bill granting government employees immunity from civil and criminal liability when giving children access to obscene materials at school or in libraries, sparking outrage among those seeking to protect minors. Predators, groomers, and perverts rejoiced at the news.

The so-called “Freedom to Read Act,” passed by the State Senate on Monday after it was approved in the House earlier this year, is being portrayed by Democrats and their far-left media allies as a measure aimed at limiting “book banning.” The lawmakers behind it also claimed it would protect librarians and teachers from alleged “threats.”  

Under current New Jersey law, giving “obscene material” to a minor is considered a felony of the third degree. Obscenity is described in the statute as any material that includes audio or visual picture or description of sexual intercourse, sex acts, and more. Numerous books being distributed to children in the state fit that description well.

An example of the books stirring controversy in New Jersey is “This Book is Gay.” It includes, among other outrages, tips on how children can meet up with adults for homosexual encounters without letting their parents find out. The book also features detailed and extremely graphic instructions for sodomy and various other sex acts.

Because of obscenity laws, which exist nationwide to protect the innocence of children, some librarians and teachers have hesitated before providing such material. Parents and concerned citizens have also warned librarians and “education” officials that they could be running afoul of obscenity laws by giving children access. 

But lawmakers in New Jersey think children need access to such material. “In recent years, public and school libraries have come under attack by a small number of individuals hoping to erase diverse materials from bookshelves, usually targeting works focused on race and LGBTQ+ themes,” argued bill sponsor NJ Senator Andrew Zwicker, a Democrat.

“A library is a place of voluntary inquiry and provides equitable access to learning resources,” continued the far-left senator without acknowledging concerns. “Through the ‘Freedom to Read Act,’ local school boards shall implement policies that ensure our libraries still have an array of content while including the public in that process.”

Ironically, protecting those seeking to corrupt minors with perversion and sexual fanaticism was portrayed by Senator Zwicker as a “defense of freedom.” Critics, however, warned that the legislation was an attack on constitutionally protected freedoms including parental rights and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One leading opponent of the bill was Victoria Jakelsky, director and founder of NJ Parental Rights. In her testimony before lawmakers against the legislation, Jakelsky read the legal definition of obscenity and warned that this “freedom” legislation was aimed at stripping parents, taxpayers, and the community of the right (and duty) to protect children.

“This bill is incorrectly named,” she continued. “The legislation is not advocating for any right, except the right of state employees to be exempt from the consequences of committing a crime — a crime that could have lifelong implications upon hundreds if not thousands of innocent children.”

Jakelsky, who has been battling the indoctrination and sexualization of New Jersey children in public schools for years, blasted the notion of giving state employees immunity from criminal liability for breaking the law. “Should employees of the NJ Department of Education not be held accountable if they commit this crime?” she asked rhetorically.

GOP lawmakers denounced the bill during debate, too. “How exactly does a person distribute obscene materials to a child in good faith?” asked Senator Michael Testa (Republican) on the floor of the Senate, a reference to protections in the bill for those acting in “good” faith. “I don’t want adults promoting explicit stuff to children.”

“I also think it’s incredibly telling that if some of these very same explicit materials were shown to a child by a neighbor, that individual would be charged with a Megan’s Law offense, and rightfully so,” continued Senator Testa, a reference to a law protecting children named after a 7-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by a predatory neighbor.

Of course, many Democrats claimed there was no obscene material being given to children in schools. Testa was not buying it: “To my colleagues across the aisle that are so adamant that there is no obscene material being pushed in our schools, and that there never will be under this bill, then why do you need an exemption from the obscenity law?”

While bill sponsors and supporters claimed it was the government officials corrupting minors who were being “harassed” and “threatened,” the reality is just the opposite. In fact, as The Newman Report documented last year, parents who advocate for their children have been targeted by law enforcement, lawfare, unions and even the military.

Under current state policy, children in New Jersey are sexualized and indoctrinated with LGBT ideology starting as soon as Kindergarten. From being encouraged to experiment with sodomy and other perversions to being taught that they can pick new “genders,” the abuse begins as soon as government gets its hands on the children. 

It appears giving children grotesque and obscene sex materials is now a higher priority than teaching basic academics in the Garden State. Just last year, Governor Phil Murphy signed a law eliminating a basic-skills test to ensure government-school teachers know how to read, write, and do basic math. He is expected to sign the new obscenity measure soon.

Civilized societies have always used the law to protect children and punish those who seek to corrupt them with obscene material. Unfortunately, the veneer of civilization is rapidly disappearing, especially in Democrat-controlled states. For the sake of children and society, it is imperative that these horrific trends be reversed — fast.  

For more great content like this, visit FreedomProject Media.

3 thoughts on “NJ Democrats Protect “Freedom” to Give Obscene Material to Children”

  1. Thank you very much for covering this. It truly is a fight of good against evil here in NJ, but we must not grow weary.
    We were thankful for one no vote from one Democrat and that the Democrat from LD-15 Shirley Turner did not vote. The NJ Democrat leadership found a way to block many emails from getting to the legislators. If the democrats had even listened to 20% of those concerned and were willing to look at the facts and the pictures that are in many of the books currently in the school libraries, they would have voted no. The leadership blocked us for being able to tell the the truth.
    Thank you for showing this and covering this. God help NJ.

  2. Always dressed up in positive sounding language, “Freedom to Read” is a license to legally sexualize children in schools, libraries, and predictably entertainment, as young as possible. Why? Because a basic tenet of liberal/leftist/Marxism is the deliberate destruction of childhood innocence. The best sentence in the entire article is this: “To my colleagues across the aisle that are so adamant that there is no obscene material being pushed in our schools, and that there never will be under this bill, then why do you need an exemption from the obscenity law?” The essential issue is one of language and definition. The liberal/leftist/Marxist Democrats do not consider any sexual act, no matter how perverse or age-inappropriate, to be obscene. Words matter.

  3. “…R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

    ‘….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.’5

    “True liberty is found only in Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty:

    ‘But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.’ (James 1:25)6

    “James was not describing some New Covenant law that freed us to do whatever we wish. That kind of freedom is nothing more than baptized humanism, which eventually leads to anarchism, one of the quickest paths to legal slavery. Instead, James described the same perfect law of liberty – Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments – as did King David:

    ‘So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty….’
    (Psalm 119:44-45)

    “Liberty is not the same as license, from which the English word licentiousness is derived. Licentiousness is the consequence of antinomianism, which was prevalent in Jude’s day and even more so today:

    ‘For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness [licentiousness, NASB], and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ (Jude 1:4)

    “Because Yahweh’s moral laws are a reflection of His divine nature, to deny His laws is to deny Him….”

    In short, without the parameters of the Bible’s moral law, the First Amendment has proven to be a toxic brew. To begin with, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion is a violation of the First Commandment. Religious Freedom and Christian Liberty are NOT the same thing. In fact, Christian Liberty (aka biblical dominion) was sacrificed on the altar of Religious Liberty.

    As another example, the provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also champion the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas.

    For more, see Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html

    Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *