[hn_acker]

In my personal experience, people usually use "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it" when referring to non-government responses to speech. It is a less rigorous offshoot of the concept "the First Amendment only applies to government restrictions to speech".

> Whatever happened to the refrain "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it". That's all this is.

That's not all it is, because you're ignoring the First Amendment. The consequences must fit the action, and proving third-party liability for speech (that is, liability for distributing the speech of others) requires overcoming a high First Amendment standard. I believe that the correct standard in this case is strict scrutiny because the broadly written bill's private right of action will chill bookstores from selling books that parents think are harmful to minors even though bookstores can sell both books that are safe for minors and those that aren't. Read my reply to OP at [1]. I also doubt that the bill would pass intermediate scrutiny, particularly the "further an important government interest" prong, because there is already a law criminalizing sale of harmful materials to minors [2]. The existing law better aligns with the First Amendment because criminal prosecutions have significantly less DDOSing potential and because the existing law has the following safeguard [2]:

> It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification.

The new bill might conflict with the safeguard because of [3]:

> Sec. 98C.005. PROHIBITED DEFENSES. It is not a defense to liability under this chapter that the defendant:

> (1) has been acquitted or has not been prosecuted or convicted under Subchapter B, Chapter 43, Penal Code;

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43882169

[2] https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-24/

[3] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01375I...

[gosub100]

then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger.

[hn_acker]

> then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does.

Porn sites generally age restrict their content voluntarily in the United States. There are constitutional ways to enforce age restrictions on websites by law (such as requiring an RTA label as mentioned by Bender [1][2], with a private right of action in only limited cases), while age verification likely is unconstitutional [3]. Anyway, we're talking about bookstores that don't chiefly cater adult-only books.

> then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger.

It's not a nothingburger if any parent claiming harm can sue and if people can turn questionable book bans on school libraries into book sale lawsuits on bookstores. So what is a concrete way for a bookstore to "simply age-restrict the content" in a way that will prevent lawsuits and allow the law to pass strict scrutiny (which has a "least restrictive means" prong [4])? When I said that a criminal law has "significantly less DDOSing potential", I meant that (even lone) frivolous lawsuits can impose a massive burden on legal speech, like in the case of SLAPP suits [5].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43784936

[2] https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single

[3] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/why-i-emphatic...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

[gosub100]

I think your viewpoint lacks awareness of diverse groups that may be sensitive to certain types of content. If you distribute works that disrupt the mind of a child, this bill allows parents to seek relief. I think that's a good thing. You can still peddle the offensive material but require ID to view it.

[hn_acker]

> I think your viewpoint lacks awareness of diverse groups that may be sensitive to certain types of content.

We might be in partial agreement on this point. Consider the parents in Iowa who think that books with LGBTQ+ themes fit a law about `sex acts` [1]. (The problem was twofold: the Iowa law was so broadly written as to include nonsexual aspects of heteronormative and LGBTQ+ themes, and parents tended to target only the books about LGBTQ+ themes.)

> If you distribute works that disrupt the mind of a child, this bill allows parents to seek relief. I think that's a good thing.

I was arguing that this bill, which both is broadly written and allows a private right of action, is a bad thing because it will encourage frivolous lawsuits over books that minors should be able to access. In some cases, kids will want to read such books against the wishes of their parents (though a parent would be able to prevent their children from reading forbidden in the bookstore by being present). Anyone writing a law around the concept of books that "disrupt the mind of a child" will have a difficult time satisfying strict scrutiny.

> You can still peddle the offensive material but require ID to view it.

Thanks. This solution could be constitutional with a more narrowly written bill and a restricted private right of action. By restricted, I mean that the mere act of selling a harmful book should not be sufficient to establish harm in most cases; unless the book contains something comparable to porn, the plaintiff's initial filings should include evidence that their child exhibited abnormal behavior or noticeable suffering after reading part of the book.

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/04/iowas-new-book-ban-anti-...