> Sec. 98C.003. COMMERCIAL ENTITY LIABILITY. A commercial entity is liable, as provided by this chapter, to a person harmed for damages arising from the distribution, transmission, or display of harmful material to a minor if, knowing the character and content of the material, the entity knowingly or intentionally benefits from participating in the distribution, transmission, or display of harmful material to a minor by facilitating, aiding, encouraging, or contributing to the distribution, transmission, or display in a manner that:
> (1) is readily accessible to minors; or
> (2) includes a minor's visual image, audio voice, or participation in any manner.
The parts that concern me the most are, when stitched together:
`A commercial entity is liable if the entity knowingly benefits from display of harmful material to a minor by contributing to the display in a manner that is readily accessible to minors.`
This bill creates a private right of action, allowing anyone who claims that the bookstore `displayed` a harmful book to their child to sue. Consider what books parents think are harmful to minors according to bans imposed on school libraries [2], and what parents think `knowingly benefits from display of that is readily accessible to minors` means. Now consider making regular libraries and bookstores liable for what books parents think are harmful to minors. If passed, such a broadly written bill would violate the First Amendment by inevitably chilling bookstores from `displaying` books like (mentioned in the article) The Bluest Eye, The Color Purple, and Slaughterhouse Five (which are each banned from school libraries in at least one Texas district).
> Sec. 98C.003. COMMERCIAL ENTITY LIABILITY. A commercial entity is liable, as provided by this chapter, to a person harmed for damages arising from the distribution, transmission, or display of harmful material to a minor if, knowing the character and content of the material, the entity knowingly or intentionally benefits from participating in the distribution, transmission, or display of harmful material to a minor by facilitating, aiding, encouraging, or contributing to the distribution, transmission, or display in a manner that:
> (1) is readily accessible to minors; or
> (2) includes a minor's visual image, audio voice, or participation in any manner.
The parts that concern me the most are, when stitched together:
`A commercial entity is liable if the entity knowingly benefits from display of harmful material to a minor by contributing to the display in a manner that is readily accessible to minors.`
This bill creates a private right of action, allowing anyone who claims that the bookstore `displayed` a harmful book to their child to sue. Consider what books parents think are harmful to minors according to bans imposed on school libraries [2], and what parents think `knowingly benefits from display of that is readily accessible to minors` means. Now consider making regular libraries and bookstores liable for what books parents think are harmful to minors. If passed, such a broadly written bill would violate the First Amendment by inevitably chilling bookstores from `displaying` books like (mentioned in the article) The Bluest Eye, The Color Purple, and Slaughterhouse Five (which are each banned from school libraries in at least one Texas district).
[1] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01375I...
[2] https://pen.org/book-bans/pen-america-index-of-school-book-b...