Texas H.B. 3225 - 89(R)
H.B. No. 3225 (a collaboration between Alders, Hefner, others, and Senator Bryan Hughes, who is currently attempting to Constitutionalize the government’s illegal but purported stakeholder interest in your children) aims to protect minors from sexually explicit materials in municipal libraries but contains loopholes that could undermine its goals and invite legal challenges. Below, I highlight these issues, suggest amendments, and propose repealing the "educational" defense for disseminating pornography as a simpler alternative.
Loopholes:
Vague Definition: "Sexually explicit material" tied to Penal Code Section 43.25 risks capturing protected speech (e.g., literature) or inconsistent enforcement.
Religious Exemption: Undefined "religious materials" (Sec. 310.002(d)) could be misused to bypass restrictions.
Weak Age Verification: Sec. 310.002(b) lacks standards, allowing ineffective measures like self-reported age checks.
Petition Abuse: Sec. 310.003(a)(3)’s 10-day review process could be overwhelmed without enforcement for delays.
Compliance Delay: The 45-day window (Sec. 310.003(b)) lets libraries postpone action.
Section Ambiguity: "Minor’s section" (Sec. 310.001(6)) allows libraries to manipulate layouts.
Amendments:
Define "sexually explicit" using the Miller obscenity test, excluding educational texts.
Limit "religious materials" to instructional texts.
Require robust age verification (e.g., library card checks).
Cap petitions and penalize review delays.
Shorten compliance to 15 days with strict relocation.
Clarify "minor’s section" to include marketed materials.
Alternative: Instead of H.B. No. 3225, amend Section 43.24, Penal Code, to repeal the "educational" defense for obscene materials accessed by minors. This avoids vagueness, reduces burdens, and aligns with existing law, minimizing legal risks.
Conclusion: H.B. No. 3225’s loopholes risk ineffectiveness. Amendments can help, but repealing the "educational" defense is clearer and stronger. Please prioritize a sound solution.
