Big Country Politics: Abilene bookstore owner discuses concerns of House Bill 1375
House Bill 1375 is legislation in Texas aimed at regulating businesses that distribute obscene content.
Censorship concerns rise over Texas bill; Abilene bookstore pushes back
'The thing that caught my attention was the wording on the bill because it actually says, 'anything that is deemed harmful.' But there's not an excavation as in harmful or in bullet points on what this could be. And so when you try to parse out what that means as a bookseller, I'm going, 'Oh, so now it's up for definition,' because it's not just, I think you use the phrase obscene, but I think the language is: is this harmful to a minor?' Kasselman said.
Kasselman mentioned that it's scary that this bill allows people to sue businesses based on what they're selling. She noted that book stores are striving, but their profit margins are small.
'If an independent bookstore like mine gets sued, I can't afford the legal fees. I can't afford the potential payouts, and what we noticed is that, in a few cases with certain bookstores that have come under scrutiny, they've tried to settle out of court. We can't afford that either. A bill like this potentially has the effect that small bookstores will close their doors because they can't afford the lawsuits. And the other option is to try to avoid the lawsuits; we either have to close our doors to minors entering the bookstores, or we would have to card people as they are buying things,' Kasselman said.
Kasselman expressed her concerns about what qualifies as harmful content, particularly in relation to 'obscene content.'
She noted that if a teenager visits a bookstore and their parents discover this, it could potentially lead to a lawsuit. Kasselman also highlighted several important books, including The Diary of Anne Frank, writings by Toni Morrison and Octavia Butler, George Orwell's 1984, and Fahrenheit 451.
'And if a parent deems that it is harmful, we're not talking pornography, I'm a mother, in fact, I'm a Christian mother. And I'm not out there to put things in the hands of children that are developmentally inappropriate or that would be harming them. But, it's this idea that we're going to censure what a book is allowed to carry,' Kasselman shared.
Kasselman sees this issue as a form of censorship and explains how she lived through censorship of books and TV when she lived in South Africa.
'I think if we can depoliticize some of these conversations and make them human again, we are probably more similar than we are different. I think the desire is to protect children, and from a bookseller, we're saying, 'Yes, let's make sure children have access to books and bookstores have similar experiences we had as children,' and we would never have something in the store that is directly harmful to children. We are opening a world to children where they can explore, and families can pick… We're not forcing anybody to buy anything, but as a private business, we have multiple options and can invite people in so they can find their own representation in the bookstore, but we're not forcing anybody to buy something against their will,' Kasselman said.
Seven and One Bookstore provides a diverse selection of books, including bestsellers, essential historical reads, and current titles that reflect shoppers' trending interests. Kasselman describes the content of each book to ensure that customers feel confident in their choices. While she prefers not to inquire about what someone is purchasing, she is always open to discussing the content of the books.
'We are not screening books; going 'oh, that book has got, this book is written for adult romance that adults will purchase.' I'm not going to say 'you shouldn't buy that book.' I'm going to let you pick that because I feel like that's your right as an American to have that kind of choice. But the way we have the store laid out, I don't have young adult books with my adult romance books; they're put in a separate part of the store,' Kasselman said.
Kasselman believes that the vagueness of HB 1375 is problematic and could result in frivolous legal actions.
'What if I have somebody come in who picks a book in my faith section and takes that home? And they have a parent who is not of a faith perspective who feels like everything to do with faith is culty or harmful because they have church hurt? And they may want to sue over that… And then I have another child or young adult who picks up a clean, closed door, which is the term we use when there's nothing sexually explicit in it, a romance book, and takes it home, and that parent doesn't like it, and then they sue? It could be coming from both sides. So what we're saying is, let's have these conversations in bills that specify certain very specific things if you have to have a regulation, or let's have people able to come and make their own decisions in a private business,' said Kasselman.
Texas HB 1375 is left pending, and BigCountryHomepage.com will continue to follow this story as it develops.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Authoritarian playbook': DHS accuses critics of assaulting officers when videos say otherwise
After New York City comptroller Brad Lander this week became the latest prominent Democrat to be arrested while monitoring and protesting US immigration authorities, the Trump administration trotted out a familiar refrain to justify his detention. The mayoral candidate had 'assaulted' law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserted, warning 'if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences'. The accusation, which DHS has also recently leveled against a member of Congress and a high-profile union leader, have sparked consternation, particularly as videos of the incidents did not show the officials attacking officers and instead captured officers' aggressive behavior and manhandling of the officials. In several cases, DHS's public accusations of assault were not followed by criminal charges. Civil rights advocates and scholars on policing say the government's assault claims against well-known members of the opposing party, and the repetition of those accusations, nonetheless are troubling indicators of rising authoritarianism. They argued the US government is blatantly misrepresenting events captured on footage in an effort to intimidate powerful officials and ordinary citizens alike who seek to challenge the White House's policies. And Alec Karakatsanis, the founder of Civil Rights Corps, a nonprofit legal advocacy group, argued: 'By relentlessly telling the population that 'two plus two equals five', it helps determine who is willing to go along with 'two plus two equals five' and deny basic truths. 'It's also about a longer-term and more profound assault on the very notion of truth – to get people so confused that they don't know what is what,' said Karakatsanis, author of Copaganda, a book about false narratives promoted by police. 'This is the classic propaganda tactic of George Orwell's 1984,' he added Lander was arrested by federal agents inside an immigration court building on Tuesday, as he asked officers whether they had a judicial warrant to detain an immigrant he was accompanying. He was released after four hours, and so far, no charges have been filed against him. Video of the encounter shows plainclothes officers, some in masks, pinning Lander to a wall, handcuffing him and escorting him away. Lander had held on to the arm of the immigrant who was being targeted. Still, DHS assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement to the press and on social media soon after the incident that it was Lander who had assaulted officers. The accusations echo those against US congresswoman LaMonica McIver, a Democrat, who, DHS claims, assaulted and impeded law enforcement when she and two other representatives arrived at a privately run Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detention center to inspect the facility on 9 May. Representatives are authorized to conduct this oversight without prior notice, and McIver said she wanted to ensure the facility was clean and safe and detainees had access to their attorneys. Shaky videos of the encounter, some released by DHS, showed a chaotic scrum where McIver and others were surrounded by officers, some masked, as law enforcement and the representative pushed against each other. Soon after, she was given a tour of the facility, but a month later was indicted for assault, a charge she has strongly denied. In Los Angeles, David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) of California, was arrested on 6 June when he showed up to document an immigration raid at a garment factory. As he stood outside, blurry footage showed officers pushing him to the ground, with multiple agents on top of him as he was put in handcuffs. US attorneys charged him with conspiracy to impede an officer. He was not charged with assault, but even after the complaint was filed, DHS has continued to respond to questions about his case with a statement that says: 'Huerta assaulted Ice law enforcement.' Huerta was hospitalized after his arrest, before being transported to jail. And last week, California senator Alex Padilla was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a DHS press conference as he attempted to ask a question, with the FBI accusing him of 'resisting' law enforcement. He was not charged with a crime. In a statement to the Guardian on Thursday, McLaughlin said Democratic politicians were 'contributing to the surge in assaults of our Ice officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of Ice', adding: 'This violence against ICE must end.' DHS has repeatedly asserted in recent weeks that it has seen a major increase in assaults on its officers. Since May, the department has often cited the claim that Ice officers, who are part of DHS, are facing 'a 413% increase in assaults against them'. Spokespeople for DHS have repeatedly refused to respond to questions about the source of the statistic, how many assaults have occurred and what time periods it was comparing. In April, a press release had referred to a '300% surge in assaults'. McLaughlin, of DHS, said in an email late Thursday that Ice officers were 'now facing a 500% increase in assaults', but again did not respond to inquiries about the figure. Some experts on US law enforcement said DHS's narratives were rooted in a long legacy of law enforcement demonizing its critics, though the Trump administration's claims seemed increasingly brazen in their deviation from the truth. Andrea J Ritchie, co-founder of Interrupting Criminalization, a group of organizers that advocates against incarceration and other forms of criminalization, said US law enforcement has frequently prosecuted people who had been abused and injured by officers. 'How many videos exist of cops yelling, 'stop resisting', while someone has their hands up and the cops are beating them?' she said. Civil rights lawyers who take on police misconduct cases often refer to the 'trifecta' of charges – resisting arrest, assault on an officer and obstruction of justice, she said: 'The harder you get beaten, the more likely you'll get those charges.' What's new under Donald Trump, she said, was the frequency of these kinds of accusations against high-profile figures. Lauren Regan, an Oregon-based civil rights lawyer who has represented activists facing prosecution, said she saw arresting elected officials as part of an 'authoritarian playbook' designed to make people widely afraid that they, too, could be targeted, regardless of their backgrounds. 'You keep it chaotic and random so no one thinks they're safe,' said Regan. 'When elected officials with privilege, power, education and training get thrown to the ground and cuffed or jailed, then what is going to happen to us? Everyone is at risk.' It's a point that wasn't lost on Padilla, who said after his detention: 'If they can do this to a United States senator who has the audacity to ask a question, just imagine what they're doing to so many people across the country.' Indeed, since the recent protests against immigration raids began in LA, hundreds of demonstrators in southern California have been arrested by local police. Federal prosecutors have formally charged a handful of them assaulting officers – though soon after moved to dismiss two of the first cases they filed. In an incident of two protesters arrested at a 7 June demonstration, a video of the chaotic scuffle showed one of the protesters being shoved by an agent just before the arrests, and officers taking both protesters to the ground. US prosecutors charged both men with assaulting officers, but filed a motion to dismiss the charges a week later after one of them told the Guardian he had not attacked the agents, and was himself severely injured in the confrontation. Others have been blasted by DHS amid immigration enforcement actions in LA. Last week, the Los Angeles Times published video of border patrol agents detaining a 29-year-old US citizen outside his car repair shop. In the footage, the man repeatedly said he was an American citizen, but an agent pushed him into a metal gate. He was eventually released. After the LA Times published a story documenting rising 'fears of racial profiling', DHS sent out a press release calling it 'fake news', including a screenshot of video of the man's arrest, and saying: 'THE FACTS: 'The facts are a US citizen was arrested because he ASSAULTED US Customs and Border Protection Agents.' DHS did not respond to the Guardian's questions asking for clarification on what constituted assault in these incidents, instead re-sending the statements it had originally posted and shared on social media in the immediate aftermath of the arrests. Alex Vitale, sociology professor and coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College, said that while the public thinks of 'assault' as causing injury, in the context of arrests and prosecution, it can be a 'nebulous category' that includes 'unwanted physical conduct'. Cases can drag on for months, he added, no matter the strength of the evidence the government is presenting: 'Police understand that the arrest and the process is the penalty even if there's no conviction in the end.' Mike German, a former FBI agent and fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit, said that the government's repeated misinformation about violence against officers risks backfiring: 'Officers do at times get assaulted, but if agencies continue to make patently false claims and suggest that any physical contact is an assault, you're going to undermine legitimate cases.' He said he was also concerned about the impacts of officers using heavy force in arrests that don't require it: 'Three or four agents tackling a US senator clearly isn't necessary. That kind of force compels resistance. It's hard to let yourself be violently attacked without your natural reaction of trying to defend yourself, and then if officers say that's assault, that undermines public trust.' Ritchie, author of Invisible No More, a book about police violence against women of color, said she was not surprised that out of the recent prominent arrests, the only politician who continues to be prosecuted for assault is McIver: 'Black women get punished for speaking up and it's framed as assault.' She said it was crucial that communities continue to forcefully reject law enforcement narratives: 'They are trying to manufacture reality. It is upon us to say the government is lying to us. This is a message they are trying to send and we're not accepting it and certainly not normalizing it.'
Wall Street Journal
24-06-2025
- Wall Street Journal
The Key to the Young Male Vote: Beer
Democrats are spending $20 million to understand the great mystery of young men—probably the simplest creatures on earth. Here's an idea for you, Democrats: lower the drinking age, at least for beer. Congress established a federal drinking age of 21 in 1984 to combat drunk-driving fatalities, of which there were 21,000 in 1983. States were coerced with the threat of withheld highway funds. They caved in quickly. Louisiana was the last holdout.
The Hill
16-06-2025
- The Hill
Why are we still talking about Biden's presidency?
On June 4, President Trump issued a memorandum directing the White House Counsel and the Attorney General to investigate former President Biden and his aides to see if they 'abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden's cognitive decline and assert Article II authority.' 'This conspiracy,' the order says, 'marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history.' Democratic politics invites citizens and political leaders to leave the past alone, except in extreme cases like genocide or apartheid. It requires victorious parties not to try to rewrite it to suit the fancies and fantasies of the moment. However, Trump seems unable to resist casting his eye backward to denigrate and impugn his predecessor. His memorandum called 'Reviewing Certain Executive Actions' is just the latest example. The president's Joe Biden-focused memorandum comes from the same place as his election-denialism. He wants to discredit everything Biden touched and sweep the last four years into the dustbin of history. Readers of literature may recognize this impulse. George Orwell's classic novel, 1984, offers a startling and imaginative rendition. In that book, Orwell describes a political party bent on securing its power and dominating the society that it ruled. The party creates a Ministry of Truth and charges it to change narratives of the past to suit the whims of the Leader. It seeks, to quote from the book, to create a world where 'nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.' Eerie. Recall the moment in February when Trump passed out 'TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING' hats to members of the press, and his Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, intoned the administration's mantra, 'Always say yes to the president.' Another literary classic, Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, conjured another fictive regime intent on revising the past to suit its purposes. In its version of history, 'The party,' one of Koestler's characters says, 'was always right, even when it was wrong.' Later, he says, 'The liquidation of the past is the precondition for the acceptance of the future.' This seems an apt description of Trump's worldview. As the Organization of American Historians explains, the Trump Administration proposes 'to rewrite history.' That impulse animates last week's presidential memorandum. There, the president asserts that 'For years, President Biden suffered from serious cognitive decline. … Biden's cognitive issues and apparent mental decline during his presidency were even 'worse' in private, and those closest to him 'tried to hide it' from the public.' 'Notwithstanding these well-documented issues,' the memorandum continues, 'the White House issued over 1,200 Presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any administration in United States history. Although the authority to take these executive actions, along with many others,' it continues, 'is constitutionally committed to the President, there are serious doubts as to the decision-making process and even the degree of Biden's awareness of these actions being taken in his name.' Note the impersonal construction: 'There are serious doubts.' It is left unspecified who is experiencing or entertaining those doubts. It might help, however, to recall Lutnick's admonition to his colleagues in the administration: 'Always say yes to the president.' Driving home its point, the president's memorandum offers this insinuation: 'If his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity … that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden's name.' As I noted in March, when Trump first raised a question about the Biden Administration's use of an autopen, there is nothing to this. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a 2005 opinion that presidents can validly sign bills by directing subordinates to 'affix the President's signature to it.' That should settle the matter. Biden's judicial appointments, grants of clemency, and other official acts are not going anywhere. But that is not the point of Trump's fixation on Biden and his directive. It is instead another sign of a president hoping to dismantle the legacy that his predecessor left behind, or, if he can't do that, to use his power to tarnish it. The comedian Jon Stewart was on to something last August when he said of Trump's obsession with all things Biden, 'It's all he knows. He misses (Biden) so much … He would give everything for just one more moment with 'crooked Joe.'' Whatever the psychological roots of Trump's Biden fixation are, it does this country a great disservice. It stokes grievance, resentment, and division. It invites the kind of corrosive cynicism and disrespect that makes it hard for partisans to take a breath and agree on a shared version of history. Trump is entitled to conjure conspiracy theories about Biden and his advisors, but Americans would be well advised not to join him. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.
