Texas Bookstores Push Back Against Bill That Would Allow Them To Be Sued Over ‘Harmful’ Content
The free, independent state of Texas continues to make it clear it only respects certain rights and freedoms and only those that adhere to the Holy Trinity of guns, God, and, um… Nazi-adjacent Cybertruck manufacturers.
A number of efforts have been made to remove books from schools and public libraries in recent years. None of those efforts are still intact, despite the decidedly conservative stance of local state and federal courts. Even the Fifth Circuit somehow managed to avoid giving a book ban a total blessing while still managing to muddy the waters so thoroughly there’s no clear path to victory for either censorial legislators or plaintiffs challenging these unconstitutional laws.
Another ridiculous effort has been mounted by a member of the Texas legislature, one that would allow pretty much any allegedly aggrieved Texas resident to sue any bookseller just because their kid happened to come across a book containing (again, allegedly) “harmful material.”
Fortunately, this bill has already met stiff opposition from those affected by it, as Ashly Ibarra reports for Big Country News.
A bill set to be heard by the Judiciary and Jurisprudence Committee at the Texas House is sparking criticism from small business owners across the state. Arlene Kasselman, who owns Seven and One Books in downtown Abilene, is raising awareness on social media about House Bill 1375.
Here’s what concerns Kasselman and other bookstore owners:
Kasselman began researching the bill and discovered it could have serious implications for small businesses, potentially leading to censorship and limits on educational materials. HB1375 allows individuals to sue if they’re harmed by obscene or harmful content, particularly when it’s accessible to minors. Under the bill, businesses that help distribute such content can be held liable, and the law lowers the bar for plaintiffs to win those lawsuits.
This law creates a private cause of action for Texas residents to sue “any commercial entity” that “distributes, transmits, or displays harmful content” to minors. Obviously, most commercial entities dealing exclusively with adult-oriented material take care to prevent minors from accessing this content. However, bookstores aren’t in the adult-oriented business, even if some of the stuff on the shelves definitely isn’t meant for kids. Proprietors don’t card bookstore patrons because… well, before this new wave of bigoted censorship swept across the nation, it was never necessary.
That’s not the only problem with the bill. It also says individual employees of “news-gathering organizations” and “broadcasters” can be sued for making “harmful content” accessible to children, which is insane because, unlike a brick-and-mortar store with limited numbers of entrances, broadcasts and reporting can be accessed by anyone with the capability to do so.
It’s a litigation machine designed to provoke self-censorship. And whatever the intended victims (that being those targeted by the law) don’t censor for themselves, the Texas legislature will presumably get around to outlawing.
There’s also this addition from the legislature’s kangaroo courtesans: the barring of almost any defense that could be raised in the lawsuits this bill fully intends to generate. Under the heading PROHIBITED DEFENSES are all of these items (and more!):
–claims ignorance or mistake of law
-has a belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional
-relies on any court decision that has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision has not been overruled when the defendant engaged in the conduct that violates this chapter
-relies on any state or federal court decision that is not binding on the court in which the action has been brought
That’s some weird stuff right there, including the lead-off denial of mens rea requirements. And while the rest of it might work in terms of criminal prosecutions, this deals with civil litigation where the things the bill aims to deny defendants access to are actually meaningful parts of the equation. It’s a bold swing, but the only thing it really guarantees is the likelihood of it being struck down as unconstitutional before it can go into effect.
It’s a moonshot, as even the local GOP official admits:
Taylor County Republican Chairman Ryan Goodwin has previously voiced support for removing books deemed inappropriate for minors. He noted that conversations about book restrictions have been ongoing for years, but he’s skeptical that this particular bill will gain traction.
But not for the obvious reasons people who aren’t bigots and are capable of understanding civil liberties would assume:
If similar legislation moves forward in the future, he hopes it will include clear and specific language defining what constitutes material harmful to minors.
Bro, there are plenty of laws on the books that deal with preventing minors from accessing harmful content. They’ve been on the books for years. Violations are normally handled through criminal prosecutions or administrative action against adult businesses (which are already heavily regulated). The problem isn’t the vagueness of the definitions (although that certainly doesn’t help). The problem is the bill drags broadcasters, journalists, and booksellers into an arena they’ve never deliberately entered.
It’s not like there’s a long history of these entities providing children with access to obscene or harmful content. The bill isn’t seeking to regulate a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s deliberately seeking to censor entities that have almost always complied with existing laws by giving hecklers the opportunity to veto content they don’t like via BS litigation and government power. Simply saying the bill has no chance to survive doesn’t make you any less complicit in its existence, you absolute schmuck. Just because certain constituents cheer when you hurt other constituents doesn’t make you a leader. It makes you nothing more than a cog in the machine that runs on bloodlust.