WBUR Podcasts, Boston.

This is on point. I'm Magna Chakrabardi.

I can't possibly see anything that contains harmful material that would have any, quote,

serious literary value to a child. I just can't. I don't care if it's a

coming of age story. I don't care if it's a graphic novel. I don't care if it's one page out of

500. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone would take that as a serious literary

value for a child. I just don't.

There's long been general agreement in this country that some materials, be it books,

TV, movies, are inappropriate for children. The debate, of course, has been over differing opinions

on what exactly constitutes inappropriate.

Or in Texas, this legislative season, what constitutes harmful?

You just heard Republican Representative Jared Patterson of Frisco, Texas.

He has sponsored a bill that would criminalize providing harmful materials to children.

The bill sailed through the Texas House by a vote of 92 to 39 and then passed the Texas State Senate 22 to 9.

SB 412 is now on Governor Greg Abbott's desk, and he is expected to sign it into law, meaning doctors,

teachers, librarians, and parents in Texas could go to jail if they give harmful materials

to kids, as deemed by the state of Texas.

Now, how exactly would the state determine what's harmful?

Representative Patterson explained on the state House floor on May 2nd.

In Miller v. California, in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a lack of value is evaluated from the lens of the work taken as a whole,

lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. That is the existing Supreme Court precedent.

And so it is your understanding under this statute

...