WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 3327

Relating to repealing the affirmative defense to prosecution for the criminal offense of sale, distribution, or display of harmful material to a minor.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Cole Hefner

Bill eliminates the legal defense for sellers of adult material who implement age-verification, making them criminally liable for minor access regardless of precautions taken.

Referred to State Affairs
#crimes--againstpersons--sexual(i0171) #criminalprocedure--general(i0208) #minors--crimesagainst(i0532)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 3327

Legislative bill overview

HB 3327 proposes to eliminate an existing legal defense that currently allows individuals charged with selling, distributing, or displaying harmful material to minors to argue they took reasonable precautions to prevent minors from accessing that material. This would remove a safeguard that protects businesses and individuals from prosecution when they implement age-verification or restriction measures. The bill would make liability stricter regardless of preventive steps taken.

Why is this important

Current law permits retailers, publishers, and online platforms to use reasonable age-verification systems as a legal defense against obscenity charges involving minors. Removing this defense would significantly increase criminal liability exposure for businesses handling adult-oriented content, potentially affecting bookstores, news outlets, streaming services, and other retailers. This could also impact free speech considerations, as businesses might self-censor content to avoid criminal risk rather than implementing practical safeguards.

Potential points of contention

  • Free speech implications: Removing the affirmative defense may chill protected speech and increase self-censorship, as businesses restrict content availability rather than rely on age-verification measures
  • Practical enforcement burden: Retailers would face near-impossible liability standards, as any minor access—regardless of company precautions—could trigger prosecution
  • Definitional ambiguity: "Harmful material" definitions vary and are subject to First Amendment challenges; strict liability without a reasonableness defense may be constitutionally vulnerable

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.