To the editor:

The story on March 7 about Senate Bill 56 (which amends K.S.A. 21-6402) says it “would hold teachers criminally responsible for exposing students to so-called sexually inappropriate material” and “removes an exemption for teachers.”

To clarify, right now, public, private and parochial school employees (as well as other groups, such as library or museum employees) can be arrested for, charged with, and convicted of the crime of promotion of harmful materials to minors. There is no “exemption” (which is how the bill’s proponents characterize it as well) from prosecution for school employees.

If one presents “competent evidence” at trial that the alleged harmful material was part of a school course or program, then the court would give the jury an instruction on that defense. SB 56 removes this affirmative defense (characterized by proponents as a “hurdle” to prosecutions) for school employees, but keeps affirmative defenses in place for college employees and five other categories.

Furthermore, SB 56 adds “public” (i.e. “public and commercial establishments”), thereby exposing employees of other public entities (city/county health departments come to my mind) to criminal prosecution with no statutory affirmative defenses.

Food for thought: In contrast, one “exemption” from criminal responsibility in Kansas is immunity from prosecution for people who make a probable cause showing — a relatively low burden of proof — that their use of force (even if a death results) was in self-defense, defense of another or defense of property.