WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 3594

Wiretapping, all parties

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rosalyn Henderson-Myers

Protects student free-expression by requiring school libraries to base material choices on licensed librarians, set policies, manage challenges, and report to DESE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 3594

Summary — H.3594 (House Docket No. 625)

Note on source materials
- The available docket/text appears to contain two different bills assembled together: (A) a Massachusetts House bill titled “An Act regarding free expression” (House No. 3594 / House Docket No. 625) concerning student free expression and school/library materials; and (B) text from a South Carolina bill amending wiretap/interception law to codify party-consent interception. The Massachusetts docket and sponsors identify H.3594 as the Massachusetts free‑expression/library bill. Below are concise summaries of both texts, with emphasis on the Massachusetts bill that corresponds to the docket.

A. Massachusetts bill — “An Act regarding free expression” (House No. 3594)

Main purpose

To protect student free-expression rights and to establish procedures and standards governing selection, retention, and challenge processes for school library materials in Massachusetts public schools.

Key provisions

  • Amends Section 82 of Chapter 71 (student rights) to explicitly include the right to receive information via school library materials that are “educational and age‑appropriate” as determined by a school library teacher licensed by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), or, if no licensed library teacher exists, by the school official responsible for library material selection.
  • Adds new sections (82A, 82B, 82C(—truncated in supplied text)):
    • Section 82A: Requires that determinations by a licensed school library teacher (or, absent that person, the responsible school employee) that materials are suitable must be (i) age‑appropriate, (ii) serve an educational purpose, and (iii) be based on professional training—not on personal, political, or doctrinal views.
    • Section 82B: Requires school committees or library administrative authorities to adopt and file annually with the Department a written policy on (i) selection of school library materials (textbooks, instructional materials, curricula, books, other resources) and (ii) use of library materials/facilities. The policy must comply with American Library Association (ALA) standards, include a process for responding to challenges or attempts to remove/restrict materials, and specify that challenged materials remain available pending a school committee vote if originally selected by a licensed school library teacher (or responsible official). Districts must report information on book challenges annually to the Department. The Massachusetts Library System / Board of Library Commissioners will provide model policies.
    • Section 82C: text truncated in the supplied document; full content not available in the provided materials.

Who is affected

  • Students (rights to receive information and access to age‑appropriate educational materials)
  • School library teachers and other school employees responsible for material selection
  • School committees and district administrators (policy adoption, reporting duties)
  • Parents, community members, and groups who challenge library materials
  • Public school libraries and the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (administrative oversight and recordkeeping)

Potential impact

  • Raises procedural safeguards for selection and retention of library materials and limits removal based solely on personal/political/doctrinal objections.
  • Strengthens the role of trained school library professionals in curation decisions.
  • Increases transparency through annual policy filing and challenge reporting to DESE.
  • Exact scope depends on the final (truncated) provisions of Section 82C and any implementing regulations.

B. (Embedded) South Carolina — “Wiretapping / All-party consent” (separate bill text included)

  • Purpose: Amend S.C. Code §17‑30‑30 to clarify when interception of wire/oral/electronic communications is lawful.
  • Key change: Makes interception lawful where the interceptor is a party to the communication or where “one if all of the parties” (text shows editing artifacts) — i.e., reflects an all‑party consent standard (consent by all parties to the communication) as lawful. Also makes similar provision for persons acting under color of law.
  • Effect: Would codify that interception by private persons is lawful with prior consent of all parties; impacts privacy and surveillance law in South Carolina. (This is a separate jurisdictional bill and appears included in the file by insertion.)

Legislative status & timeline (as recorded)

  • Prefiled: 2024‑12‑12
  • Introduced: 2025‑01‑14; read first time
  • Referred: Committee on Judiciary (12/12/2024 and 01/14/2025 entries); also recorded as referred to Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development (02/27/2025) — the docket shows multiple committee referrals (likely procedural or clerical overlap).
  • Hearing scheduled: 07/22/2025 (B‑2)
  • Reported favorably and referred to House Ways & Means: 10/06/2025
  • Accompanied by bills H3591 and H3598; replaces HD 625 in the docketing history
  • Sponsors: Primary sponsors Rep. John Francis Moran and Rep. Adam J. Scanlon; many additional co‑petitions listed.

Notes and open items

  • The supplied document is truncated for Section 82C; review full bill text for complete selection/challenge procedures and any enforcement/penalty language.
  • The presence of South Carolina statutory language in the docket appears to be an insertion from another bill and is jurisdictionally distinct from Massachusetts H.3594. Confirm which text is intended for H.3594 when tracking legislative action or preparing advocacy/analysis.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.