Anonymous
7/17/2025, 4:53:43 AM
No.715677029
>>715675997
Thanks to the definition of obscene in this subchapter, the law as written (unless/until Texas amends that part of their law) exempts works which "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value." Even if Miller were overturned (which with the current court, is a very realistic possibility), as the current definition is defined by statute and not case law, it would apply until Texas amends that part of the code.
Obviously if prosecutors just ignore the text of the law as they did in the Castillo case, it could be applied to whatever some prosecutor wants, though that is true with existing obscenity laws as well. Though that is the main risk of the law, its written in a way it won't be blocked on first amendment grounds since it is in line with existing case law, using a definition of obscene that the courts have upheld, but is easier for a prosecutor to pretend the law is different.
Thanks to the definition of obscene in this subchapter, the law as written (unless/until Texas amends that part of their law) exempts works which "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value." Even if Miller were overturned (which with the current court, is a very realistic possibility), as the current definition is defined by statute and not case law, it would apply until Texas amends that part of the code.
Obviously if prosecutors just ignore the text of the law as they did in the Castillo case, it could be applied to whatever some prosecutor wants, though that is true with existing obscenity laws as well. Though that is the main risk of the law, its written in a way it won't be blocked on first amendment grounds since it is in line with existing case law, using a definition of obscene that the courts have upheld, but is easier for a prosecutor to pretend the law is different.