See below for a HillCo report on House floor reading discussions and votes for House Bill 900 on second reading and third reading.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer.
HB 900 (Patterson / Buckley / Burrows / Shaheen / Longoria / et al.) Relating to the regulation of library materials sold to or included in public school libraries.
- Patterson – Curriculum instructional materials & sexual education instructional materials undergo extensive review process, but public school library have none of these requirements, no approved vendors, no statewide consistency
- Patterson – Need uniform standards just as with other areas; bill keeps existing voluntary standards and establishes new standards
- Included in new standards is much of what exists, standards would recognize obscene content has no protection under First Amendment, recognizes parental authority, encourages catalogue transparency
- Prohibits possession, acquisition, & purchase of sexually explicit materials
- Second part of bill is about vendor ratings, similar to movie & TV ratings; TV content is restricted by FCC between 6 AM & 10 PM, single explicit moment or word can result in fines
- FCC Patently Offensive definition: 1) explicit definition of sexual activity, 2) dwells on repeats description or depiction of sexual activities, 3) pandering or titillating content
- Bill enacts similar standards, requires library material vendor be aware of content distributed, protects teachers, librarians or staff from damage claims
- Responsible party is book vendor
- Part three is parental controls, opt-in for sexually relevant books that aren’t explicit; parents need greater access & authority over library material
- Parents have right to restrict content for sexual instruction, opt-in mandates this principle for libraries
- Part four mandates ISDs review and distribute publicly the library materials that are rated sexually relevant & decide whether to continue that title
- Intent is to ensure content provided to youth is the content we want the next generation seeing; bill restricts explicit content from minors in public schools
- FA 1 Patterson – Perfecting amendment; moves out some of the compliance dates for vendors and schools, adds guardrails on sexually explicit definition for vendors & TEA, makes clear that we’re not trying to remove books based on protected class
- FA 1 adopted
- FA 2 Zwiener – Clarifying amendment, adds provisions to library development standards to recognize essential role school libraries play as centers for voluntary inquiry & recognize reading is an important goal for students regardless of chosen material
- Zwiener – Potentially not affirming value of reading alone could lead to some books begin targeted for lack of goals; reading itself is the TEKS
- Patterson – Amendment recognizes that reading is important goal regardless of material, reading any material is an educational goal?
- Zwiener – Goal is to operate in conjunction with ban on explicit content, vulgar content, etc.; doesn’t override, specifically concerned with “educationally unsuitable” language, don’t want this to mean “doesn’t include TEKS”
- Patterson – Amendment not needed, doesn’t improve the bill
- Zwiener – Helps bill better live up to stated intent & in compliance with US Constitution and Pico v. Board
- FA 2 fails (55-91)
- FA 3 Reynolds – Annual report on materials labeled sexually explicit or sexually relevant with demographic breakdowns
- Reynolds – Book bans often impact authors of color, books on racism, sexual orientation, rights & activism, etc.
- Patterson – Perfecting amendment made clear bill is not about anything other than sexually explicit material; reviewed material about authors of bills challenged and majority white & straight, not a racism bill
- Zwiener and Reynolds discuss history of book bans implemented in a discriminatory manner
- Zwiener – Report would create backstop to ensure intent is matched with reality; have seen attacks on books based on race and sexuality
- Zwiener – Are you concerned about different standard for sexually explicit material in books by LGBTQ authors and authors of color?
- Reynolds – Absolutely
- FA 3 fails (61-84)
- FA 4 Murr – Changes obscenity exemption in the penal code which would allow otherwise illegal material to be legal for educational purposes
- Murr – References Llano ISD
- Talarico POO Article 3 Sec. 5(a) TX Constitution, Rule 11, not germane, withdrawn
- FA 4 withdrawn
- Rosenthal speaks against the bill – Book banning & burning has been practiced for centuries on the planet; highlights Comstock law banning notable titles like Ulysses and Canterbury Tales
- Zwiener speaks against the bill – Bill goes far beyond what most members would support; many scenes from books used as examples of too explicit were sexual assault scenes; libraries are spaces of voluntary inquiry where students can find material relevant to then;
- Zwiener – Bill is a bait & switch, did not start with Frisco ISD, comes from former legislation on material on racism and a list of 800 books targeted based on ideas contained in the books
- Discriminates against material in books in an unconstitutional manner, Pico v. Board was clear; TV bans and book bans are different, operate under different rules
- Bill is unworkable, requires vendors to mark books sold when they do not write the books
- Mike Morath and TEA would make decisions on library contents all over the state, would prefer if elected Board was responsible for library decisions
- Has been difficult for librarians & places target on their backs
- Thierry speaks in favor of the bill – Did research & found 15 books in my district that have no place in a child’s library; don’t want to take out good books that help children thrive academically & culturally; bill will make vendor label books that contain highly sexual material
- Toth speaks in favor of the bill – Watched CISD vote to keep Ramona Blue in school libraries, watched ISD be unable to remove Perks of Being a Wallflower
- Hinojosa – Books are opportunities for children to learn something new about themselves & explore interests; this is where the concern and fear comes from, not wanting to cut off opportunity to explore & learn who they are
- Patterson – Critical, relatives were librarians and taught; believe in public schools, but problem is radically sexual explicit materials and what they could do to children’s brains
- Hinojosa – Some books that shouldn’t be in school libraries, but there might also be titles that are a little vulgar or not in the best taste that can help children; would you agree that reading and keeping children reading?
- Agree, reading is important & children need opportunities to read books
- Hinojosa – Different parents have different standards, some parents don’t think it is appropriate to ban any book; will those parents still be able to check out books that are sexually relevant
- Not banning books, not talking about book stores, Amazon, etc.
- Rose – What books should be in schools?
- Couldn’t name every book that should be; highlights Hank the Cowdog, Goosebumps
- Problem is that authors have sold books to publishers and the books have been subsequently changed; if content has changed, maybe book should be reviewed
- Rose – Who will make decisions on what book is and is not appropriate
- Crafted specific definitions of sexually explicit material
- Vendors are the ones forced to rate books either sexually explicit or relevant, they are the ones with financial relationship with ISDs
- If they don’t rate appropriately, book can be challenged with TEA & vendor has 60 day window to issue new rating, then required to recall, if they don’t then they would be unable to sell books to public schools
- Rose – Familiar with 1619 Project? Would that be appropriate?
- Not familiar with the book, if it meets definition or doesn’t fit within guardrails then no it shouldn’t be
- Rose – Wanted to make sure that we’re not trying remove history books
- Anchia moves that debate be placed in Journal
- Talarico – Both share same goal of keeping pornographic material out of schools; concern in the Public Education hearing was that definitions were so broad that it would include books like Lonesome Dove; your understanding is that these books wouldn’t be in the bill?
- Correct, classics or books on curriculum are not included
- Talarico – On vendor rating system, publishers know what’s in a book, vendors tend to be middlemen & may not be suited to apply ratings whereas publishers might be better suited
- They better get ready for it, because it is coming
- They are the ones who have the direct financial relationship with schools, ample opportunity to make money selling books, but they need to be appropriate for children
- Understand that companies like Follett would rather sell sexually explicit material to children & that we would be forced to stop them legislatively; that’s why we’re here today
- Talarico – Why vendors and not publishers?
- Vendors have direct financial relationship
- Talarico – Different ratings?
- Can appeal to TEA
- Talarico – Commissioner Morath would have final say?
- Yes and his staff
- Talarico – If we’re requiring Amazon to create rating system, wouldn’t they choose not to sell?
- They can make that choice if they chose to
- Talarico – Could make it harder for librarians to get books
- No one will buy more books than TX in the coming decades
- Model legislation that could be adopted across the US
- Talarico – Can you define difference between Sexually Explicit and Sexually Relevant?
- Patently offensive based on community standards
- Talarico – Can you give examples?
- Genderqueer would be deemed sexually explicit, even though it was challenged it remains in 35% of district libraries
- Sexually relevant book would deal with themes, but may not contain graphic nature, contact, or depictions
- Talarico – Sexually relevant example?
- Don’t have one
- Talarico – Pervasively Vulgar and Educationally Unsuitable; no Pervasively Vulgar definition in bill, correct?
- Fair
- Talarico – Also no definition for Educationally Unsuitable
- Correct, this is the established caselaw in Pico v. Board
- Talarico – In Pico, those two terms are also not defined
- Book ratings will not be judged on that, these are guardrails on the collection development standards that will be developed by TSLAC and approved by SBOE
- Talarico – Concerned that sexually explicit has been defined, but these terms are unclear
- Will be determined by TSLAC, pervasive has a common definition & one bad word may not trigger
- Frisco ISD had a book with hundreds of uses of the f-word, that would be pervasively vulgar
- Talarico – Highlights Catcher in the Rye, concern is that if we’re now mandating removing books that are pervasively vulgar that could include Catcher in the Rye, includes over 200 curse words
- Catcher in the Rye should be in approved curriculum and then would be exempt, classics are not the target
- This is the catch all that is ensuring we aren’t going to far with the bill
- Talarico – Appreciate this isn’t the intent, but the required curriculum statute only incl. science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts; so if it isn’t int eh curriculum, it would be banned
- Not banning any books, up to ISD to develop curriculum
- Talarico – If they don’t chose it, it could be removed
- Perhaps
- Talarico – Appreciates Rep. Patterson’s work on perfecting amendment
- Patterson thanks moms & teachers fighting against explicit materials & staff that worked to prepare bill
- Passed to engrossment (96-52)
HB 900 (Patterson / Buckley / Burrows / Shaheen / Longoria / et al.) Relating to the regulation of library materials sold to or included in public school libraries.
- V Jones speaks against the bill – Looked for material that spoke to me & stories from those who came before at school libraries, to learn & grow up with healthy perception of who I was
- Patterson – Bill has nothing to do with anything mentioned, not about race, particular author, slavery, etc., bill is about sexual content in hands of children; embarrassing that this needs to be a law
- Finally passed (95-52)