Texas Bookstores Push Back Against Bill That Would Allow Them To Be Sued Over ‘Harmful’ Content
from the codifying-the-heckler's-veto dept
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.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, arlene kasselman, book bans, censorship, ryan goodwin, texas
Companies: seven and one books


Comments on “Texas Bookstores Push Back Against Bill That Would Allow Them To Be Sued Over ‘Harmful’ Content”
Everything’s bigger in Texas—including the disdain for the Constitution.
Re:
Also the asses of the people whose heads go up them. 😉
Re: Lest we forget...
… That a few Texas counties, when the 5th Circus ruled that no one in Texas deserved to be protected from usury in the Loan Star State, they could also impose their extremist religious viewpoints on library patrons, and absent that, the counties almost closed them rather than expose da children! or (say this quietly) adults to concepts and ideas in books such as “Snow Falling on Cedars” or “The Diary of Anne Frank”. Despite the fact they have no problem with those same concepts being taught in their after school religious classes. Soon now to be during school using tax dollars. Our illustrious governor, Greg Abbott, should have an auriga beside him, whispering “The road to hell is ordered by the righteous, planned by the well meaning, built by the slavishly obedient, paid for by everyone and paved with good intentions.”
Hey, Texas? This isn’t a good look on you. Fortunately, for sheer lunitic antics, we have Ryan Walters from Oklahoma to out preform us. First, they fascinate the fools…
so what would be the specific Tort ?
Re:
Knowingly “display”ing a for-sale book with “harmful material” to a minor is a tort. The relevant section is:
One way to trigger liability is: A kid and their LGBTQ-phobic parent enters a bookstore. The kid reads a bit of the book, and asks the parent to buy it. The parent skims it, gets suspicious, and asks what the book is about to the bookstore owner. The owner mentions the book’s LGBTQ themes. The parent asks whether other parents bought it for their kids and the bookstore owner says yes.
Cue lawsuit. You could argue that the parent is wrong to think that LGBTQ themes are “harmful material” and that therefore the bookstore doesn’t trigger liability, but the tort is exposing the kid to the book and not some consequence of exposing the kid to the book, so an early dismissal is unlikely. This bill is basically a pro-SLAPP law.
Funny to be on the topic of “harmful” content when they’re also plotting to reintroduce KOSA now.
I had so hoped we’d be done with that thing last year.
Here’s to hoping the courts kill it, I guess!
Nope, not a chance. A law can’t just say “this law is valid even if the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional”.
Let me guess. Harmful is defined as anything the republicans don’t like.
Re:
Books on slavery ✅️
Books on queer people ✅️
Books on fascism ✅️
Books on science ✅️
Books on- well, at this point they might as well just shutter bookstores and libraries altogether
Which is exactly what they want to do
So, under this proposed legislation, an accused* can be convicted even if what they did was legal when they did it, and even if the law is unconstitutional?
Land of the Free, you say…
Re:
Land of the free to be abused by anyone with enough greed and hate and wealthy corporate campaign donors.
If this law passes I urge all Texas residents to sue every Christian bookstore for allowing minors to access the Bible, a book that includes loads of violence and even (gasp!) incest.
Re:
You know they’ve carved out some awkward exception that applies only to the Christian bible and no other religions lol.
We literally already have SCOTUS cases about this exact thing.
This is just Texas trying to repeat the runaround they did with abortion (and a direct consequence of SCOTUS not immediately squashing that bullshit)
Re:
*quashing
At this point I’m almost for letting the bill pass, then suing suing every bookstore in Texas with a romance section.
Just to hear the howls as the tradwives faces get eaten by leopards.
Because we all know who the demographic buying those books are.
And they need to feel the pain, to get them to understand the pain they inflict.
'Positive portrayals of minorities, relationships that are anything other that hetero...'
If similar legislation moves forward in the future, he hopes it will include clear and specific language defining what constitutes material harmful to minors.
Not a chance in hell, even the bigots pushing these sorts of laws know that they have to be vague otherwise it will quickly become clear that when they say ‘harmful to minors’ they mean ‘anything that personally offends me’, and just as damning given how frequently those pushing the books bans like to style themselves as christian it becomes trivial for people to point out how the bible would absolutely qualify as ‘harmful to children’ under their own standards.
Re:
Thing is, they don’t want anyone exposed to the bible either, not really.
Your pastor will tell you everything you need to know about the bible, there’s no reason anyone should ever read it themselves. And that goes double for children, definitely don’t let them get their grubby hand anywhere near it, it might give them ideas after all.
Please point to where on your minor the book touched them.
Re:
It touched here. [Points to the child’s temple.]
I could see Anna’s Archive getting a lot more customers.
Since they are not in the usa they would not be subject to that law
“Private Cause Of Action” bills have become a nice visible label that tells you that the lawmakers know they are doing something unconsitutional or in violation of other laws and easily challenged.