Texas Legislator Wants To Fine Museums $500k Per Day For Displaying ‘Obscene’ Content
from the playing-to-the-cheapest-seats dept
Here’s a law no one has ever needed, being offered up by a legislator no one needs.
Authored by Texas Rep. David Lowe (R- North Richland Hills), the bill— HB 3958—would give the Texas Attorney General the ability to seek hefty penalties for museums that are deemed to promote obscene material.
The bill defines “obscene material” based on Sections 43.22, 43.23 and 43.24 of the Texas Penal Code, which classify obscenity as content that portrays sexual conduct without any artistic or educational value or features the nudity of individuals under 18.
You know why we don’t have more laws like these? I mean, beyond the obvious constitutional issues. It’s because obscenity laws don’t have carve-outs for museums. Even beyond that, the mere fact that something is being displayed in a museum suggests strongly that it has “artistic or educational value,” as The Questionable Authority pointed out on Bluesky:
If you can’t see/read the embed, it says:
If it’s in a museum, it’s definitionally not obscenity.
Seriously.
If it’s in a museum, it has some form of social or artistic value, and if it has social or artistic value, it is not obscene under Miller and its progeny.
So, why does this bill even exist? Well, its origins lie with someone equally performative and stupid: Carlos Turcios, a self-proclaimed “conservative fighter” who managed to celebrate a (short-lived) coup when he turned his personal visit to the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth (Texas) into police action and an equally stupid op-ed for the Dallas Express.
The Dallas Express visited the museum and saw several pictures featuring children. One photo showed a girl jumping on top of a table. Another depicted a boy with an unknown liquid substance and his genitals exposed.
The Dallas Express team then saw a video on a TV screen where an individual talked about her “queerness.”
“One of my major apprehensions around having a child was not knowing how we would be treated as queer people and queer parents. This is largely why I wasn’t interested in being pregnant,” the individual is heard saying during a video played during the exhibit.
Other photos showcase a topless woman exposing her breasts and a photo of two women together in bed, to name a few.
This article discusses Shirley Mann’s photography, which does include a few photos of her own children in the nude. None of this approaches the legal definition of CSAM, but Turcios is apparently one of those “I know it when I see it” people even though he doesn’t actually know it when he sees it.
That late December visit led to a single (apparently anonymous) complaint to local law enforcement, which of course resulted in this stupidity the following month:
Police in Texas have seized several works by the photographer Sally Mann from the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth (The Modern), following a complaint that the images portray naked children and could be seen as pornographic.
[…]
Although the exhibition has been open since mid-November, it seems Mann’s photographs first came under scrutiny just before Christmas, when The Dallas Express received a tip from a local resident and sent its staff writer Carlos Turcios to investigate.
Of course, there are no follow-up articles from Turcios at his blog or at the quasi-newspaper that gives him space to spout his inanity. The cops raided a museum and seized a bunch of photos and the local prosecutor went so far as to present this to a grand jury for obscenity/CSAM charges. But the grand jury decided this wasn’t the ham sandwich it was looking for.
A Texas grand jury declined to take any action in the investigation surrounding Lexington-based photographer Sally Mann’s work, clearing the way for the return of several seized photographs to the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth.
The images — part of Mann’s controversial “Immediate Family” series from the early 1990s — had been removed by Fort Worth police in January following complaints from local officials, including Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare, who alleged the photographs could constitute child pornography. The museum had included several of Mann’s portraits, which depict her children nude, in its “Diaries of Home” exhibition.
On Tuesday, the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office issued a statement confirming the grand jury’s decision to take “no action” against the museum or its staff. The Fort Worth Police Department has said the photographs will be returned to the museum.
I guess Rep. Lowe is sore loser. Deprived of a victory lap by a jury of his peers (so to speak), he’s decided it’s time to specifically target Texas museums with a law that could result in $500,000/day fines should any other “conservative fighters” misinterpret/misrepresent museum exhibits. It’s not that the existing law isn’t capable of punishing museums for stacking a bunch of Hustlers in a corner and calling it an art exhibit (although porn is also protected by the First Amendment). It’s that the existing law just isn’t punitive enough to nudge museums — those bastions of woke liberalism — into self-censorship and limiting exhibits to whatever Norman Rockwell prints they have on hand (except for the one where the kid is waiting to get a shot in his naked butt cheek).
Having lost this battle, these local conservatives seem hell-bent on losing the war. The law, if passed, will be challenged. Considering its specific targeting of a single location hosting third-party artistic expression, it seems unlikely to survive even the most cursory review by a federal judge. Even the Tarrant County judge who’s similarly ridiculous won’t be able to change anything. It’s a state law, not a county ordinance.
Texans deserve better than this, even the ones who cheer this sort of thing on. Someone tried to turn art into smut and failed but rather than try to better their target selection, they’ve decided it’s time to make the entire state pay for their failures.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, censorship, david lowe, gop, moral panic, sally mann, texas


Comments on “Texas Legislator Wants To Fine Museums $500k Per Day For Displaying ‘Obscene’ Content”
“could be seen as pornographic”
Sure, if you’re a pervert nonce. Once again, accusations sound more like confessions.
Re: How's it not an admission of serious weirdness?
A grown-ass adult who can’t (or won’t?) understand the difference between sexual and non-sexual nudity is not someone I would trust with much, frankly… but especially not with children
If you’re wondering why Nazi “art” is always so fucking bland, this here is it.
If you think all photos of naked children are porn, you’re the one with the problem.
That being said, I do think there’s an issue with consent and whether these children got any say in their images being put out in public. But that’s a conversation that requires depth and nuance, and not the knee-jerk reaction like the one here.
Re:
Asking your 12-year-old about publishing nude images you took of them when they were three is one thing, but when the kid is still young, parental consent steps in. Or would you deny a child a life-saving operation simply because a seven-year-old is too young to sign the consent form?
People that have issues like this are afraid of their own impulses, and should simply look to that “Good Book” they so often misquote. “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.”, or, to put it another way- if it bothers you, DON’T LOOK.
Re:
Those who most strongly insist they live by the book, struggle to actually do so, I notice.
Re:
Whut it’s on ME?? I cain’t shame the WIMMEN fer makin’ mah dingle tingle?!
Nah: THAT ain’t KRISchin a’tall…
Re:
Every Conservative ever: “Which is what we suggested when you wanted the Ten Commandments to be removed from display in public schools.”
Once again, the Far Reich thinks two wrongs make a right.
I’d honestly prefer actual cartoon villains to these goons at this point.
Do something about child beauty pageants, Texas, then you can talk about what is and isn’t appropriate for art.
This is the worst fucking timeline...
Looking forward to nuclear war to end this madness. Or an AI takeover…anything at this point.
Re:
If either CalExit or the Republic Of Pacifica happens, USA laws will not apply in the new nation.
That is why proposals to block porn or block pirate sites would not apply in an independent California or Republic Of Pacifica.
Oh TX this is soooooo 1990s.
Some Cincinnati sheriff thought he could make a name for himself by criminalizing art. That Maplethorpe show made national headlines and the Cincinnati Art Museum had record crowds because of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Barrie
Re:
Back in 1990 there wasn’t a country-wide cult of rabid fascists who are openly cheering the normalization of people being black-bagged and disappeared by the feds.
Things change, and not for the better.
Re: Re:
The Christian Right nearly ruined the Republican Party back in the 1990s.
I just hope there is not another CDA which results in someone wanting to ruin the Olympics
Back in 1995 and 1996 there were mad calls by somoene in Australia calling for the Olympics in Atlanta to be boycotted and boycotts of Olympic sponsors.
They should have investigated the Olympic Park Bombing further as I would not the perps had some connecttion to these
With the Olympics coming to LA in 2028 I dont want to see something like that happen.
The Christian Right almost destroyed the Republican Party in 1995 and 1996
I could well see Kamala running again in 2028 and getting elected if the Christian Right tries that again.
Why not fine them $500 Billion? I mean, it’s way more of a deterrent!
A government has no right to police “obscenity.” Moral police it is not. Or must not be, I guess, since they didn’t get the memo. Too busy amassing power over those they are placed to protect.
'So what if they're on fire and running in terror, they're naked therefore porn!'
This article discusses Shirley Mann’s photography, which does include a few photos of her own children in the nude. None of this approaches the legal definition of CSAM, but Turcios is apparently one of those “I know it when I see it” people even though he doesn’t actually know it when he sees it.
Hate to break it to the perverts but if they’re incapable of seeing an undressed kid without thinking ‘sex’ that says more about them and their fitness(or lack thereof) to be around kids than it does anything about the photographer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You could break into the computers and erase that fine, but the laws are stricter in Texas because they do have the “instrument of crime” statute.
That is why California abortion clincs using jammers to prevent Texas from enforcing its laws against its citizens gong out of state to get abortion could get themn prosecuted in Texas, as the jammer would considered an “instrument of crime” in Texas, even though abortion clinics are not breaking any California laws using such jammers as California’s constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
At one place I stopped on a road trip in California for gas, the GPS went screwey, but as soon as I got away from there, it started working again. Turns out there is a nerby abortion clinic that is jammming GPS to keep states like Texas from enforcing their laws against going out of state for an abortion and they are breaking no laws using such a jammer
Re:
I call BS. GPS jammer signals fall under federal law.
Re:
I’m not sure what tinfoil-hat size you wear, but check the fit. GPS jamming remains illegal at a federal level, there is no Texas/Cali thing going on there. it’s more probable you just had some kind of glitch.
Re:
Piss off, you lying POS. We had enough of your trolling a couple of years ago, so it’s far past time you got back under your bridge and fucking stayed there.
That’s called water. You know, the stuff your kids are in when you photograph them in the bath.
i’m majorly curious, is the woman’s name shirley mann or sally man???? also why did her name change??? heh