According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 267 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill narrows affirmative defenses for offenses related to the sale, distribution, or display of harmful material to minors by limiting them to only law enforcement and judicial officers acting in their official capacity. It also removes existing statutory protections for professionals engaged in education, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, or legislative work when handling such materials.

While the bill might lead to an increase in prosecutions, the LBB assumes that any additional costs related to enforcement, prosecution, supervision, or incarceration will not be significant. This suggests that the number of new criminal cases is not expected to increase dramatically or place a substantial burden on state correctional resources.

At the local level, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for county and municipal governments responsible for enforcement. Any additional workload for local prosecutors, courts, or correctional facilities due to expanded criminal liability is expected to be manageable within existing resources. However, indirect economic effects—such as the potential impact on educational, medical, or research institutions—were not assessed in the fiscal note.

HB 267 is a targeted and important measure that enhances Texas’s ability to protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit and harmful materials. By narrowing the scope of affirmative defenses in prosecutions under Sections 43.24 and 43.25 of the Penal Code, the bill ensures that only judicial and law enforcement officers acting within their official duties retain protection when handling such materials. This change addresses concerns about overbroad legal defenses that have historically allowed for questionable materials to be shown or distributed to minors under claims of educational or other professional purposes.

While there was initially some concern about potential unintended impacts on legitimate professional activities, such as therapy for trauma survivors, careful analysis shows that the bill’s application is limited only to situations where harmful material is shown to minors. Adult-only academic research, policymaking, and professional reviews are not affected. Furthermore, in practice, prosecutors retain discretion, and the law remains focused on intentional and reckless conduct rather than legitimate, good-faith therapy or research.

Given the bill’s clear and necessary focus on protecting children without broadly disrupting lawful professional activities, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on HB 267. The bill appropriately closes loopholes, strengthens child safety, and furthers Texas’s longstanding commitment to shielding minors from exploitation and inappropriate material.

• Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens individual liberty in its truest form by protecting minors from harmful and sexually explicit materials, recognizing that children require special legal protections as they develop autonomy and personal identity. While the bill narrows previously broad affirmative defenses, it is targeted specifically to interactions involving minors, not adult-only professional or academic contexts. Thus, it reinforces the core concept that liberty does not include the right to harm or exploit others, especially vulnerable individuals like children.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill strongly promotes personal responsibility by ensuring that individuals and institutions are held accountable when exposing minors to harmful materials. By limiting affirmative defenses only to law enforcement and judicial actors acting in their official capacities, it removes potential loopholes and demands that any display of sensitive materials to minors must meet the highest standards of necessity and responsibility.
• Free Enterprise: The bill has minimal direct impact on free enterprise. Businesses operating in areas such as education, healthcare, legal services, and research will continue to function normally, provided they do not engage in displaying harmful material to minors outside of carefully defined, lawful circumstances. The bill is carefully scoped and does not impose new regulatory burdens on adult-only professional work or commerce.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not affect private property rights. It does not involve changes to ownership, seizure, or control of property, nor does it introduce new restrictions on material possession unless minors are improperly involved.
• Limited Government: While the bill removes some existing affirmative defenses, it does so in a narrow and focused way aligned with a limited government's legitimate role in protecting the welfare of children. It does not create new broad regulatory structures or surveillance mechanisms. Instead, it sharpens existing criminal statutes to ensure they apply appropriately to truly harmful conduct involving minors, maintaining a government that is limited in scope but strong where protection of fundamental rights (especially those of children) is concerned.

• SB 412 (Same As)
• SB 242 (Similar To)