Another Book Ban Bill Makes Its Way To The Texas Governor’s Desk

Never give up. That’s the unofficial motto of the Republican party pretty much everywhere in the nation. No matter how many rights you violate, court decisions you lose, and public criticism you receive, always remember, you’re in the for the long haul. It is your (allegedly) God-given right to take away other people’s rights and to impose your personal morals and bigotry on everyone who has the misfortune of being a constituent.

Book ban laws are a dime a dozen these days. Texas legislators are particularly enthusiastic about limiting access to content they don’t like, so they’re not going to let loss after loss derail their plans to impose their will on the entire state.

Speaking of losses, Texas House members just took an L with a bill that would have prevented minors from accessing books deemed “sexually explicit” by the state’s censors without approval of a legal guardian. In this context, “sexually explicit” tends to mean nothing more than a book treats anyone not white and straight as an actual human being. This bill also added $10,000 fines to the mix, threatening to impoverish already underpaid librarians for providing their services as librarians.

That one is dead. Great. But others are still alive, including this one, which the bill’s author admits would end up banning classics like Romeo and Juliet, the hugely popular Lonesome Dove series, and frequent target of book ban/burns, Catcher in the Rye.

Here’s how this book ban bill plans to get around the First Amendment and other impediments to its proposed censorship of content that’s often on required reading lists for school students.

Senate Bill 13 would give school boards, not school librarians, the final say over what materials are allowed in their schools’ libraries by creating a framework for them to remove books based on complaints they receive. The final version of the bill agreed upon by lawmakers from both chambers would allow school boards to oversee book approvals and removals, or delegate the responsibility to local school advisory councils if parents in a district sign a petition allowing their creation. The House version of SB 13 required 20% of parents to sign the petition, but the version agreed upon between chambers requires only 50 parents or 10% of parents in the district, whichever is less.

Any last minute alterations to this Senate bill can probably be traced to a disappointing, disjointed decision handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last month. The Appeals Court took two swings at the case, which dealt with censorship attempts in Llano County, Texas. The second attempt was no better than the first. In the end, the Fifth Circuit said libraries (and library boards) should have final say in content curation. If they didn’t, they could (rhetorically) be forced to provide readers with access to (using the court’s example) “racist content.”

Of course, no one pushing for book bans in Texas cares about removing racist content. In fact, two of the books they were pushing to have removed were books detailing the history of racism in America. But the final call by the court says curation is up to the libraries themselves, decisions which are not made by librarians, but rather by library boards.

Which is what this bill hopes to do — allow the government to censor content it doesn’t like while pretending it’s all about libraries’ rights to curate content to better serve the public. It’s bullshit, but it’s modeled after bullshit that’s been proven to work in the Fifth Circuit.

Here’s what happened in Llano County after local politicians first tried to force the local library to remove content they didn’t personally care for:

The original library board was disbanded and reformed. The library director (Amber Milum) was prohibited from attending these meetings and forced to ask permission from the new board to purchase any new books. 

The Fifth Circuit has given its blessing to local governments stacking the deck to force libraries to engage in viewpoint discrimination. This bill lowers that bar even further, allowing parents to become part of the government by elevating themselves to the position of regulators with only 50 signatures or 10% of parents in the district, whichever is less. So, if a school pushes back against censorship, those making that decision can easily be replaced by parents and others fully aligned with the ruling party’s inherent bigotry.

And there’s more to it than just stacking the deck against personal freedom. The intent of the bill’s crafters is to place many barriers between constituents and content these legislators don’t like. This bill allows the hecklers to achieve a veto with a minimum of heckling and then enjoy the result of their veto for as long as possible, even if they don’t ultimately succeed in getting books permanently removed from library shelves.

School boards will have 90 days after complaints on each book are filed to reach a decision on whether to add, keep or remove material from school bookshelves. The proposed advisory councils are only required to meet twice per school year…

Libraries and schools have to comply within 90 days. If they wish to challenge the decision made by the “advisory councils,” they will just have to wait until the next time the council convenes, which could be as long as six months after the school boards’ responses to challenges are required. Keeping content off shelves for a year is as simple as mandating it in the first session and tabling any discussion of this decision during the next session. Rinse and repeat. It makes permanent bans just as easy to accomplish as temporary removals. All council members have to do is remember to kick the can down the road during the next meeting.

Will the governor sign this bill? Given that it’s unlikely to be successfully challenged in this appellate circuit, I can’t see how he won’t. This is a censor’s dream, aided and abetted by legislative enablers and a court that can’t seem to find the willpower to act as a check against government overreach if it’s overreach performed by their preferred side of the partisan divide.