It's called censorhip, not criminal behavior.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnweKlptFcPJXc2GxbuIyE4ix6Vg
Are you fucking kidding me?

"Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole and is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.

Disagree with that statement above? Fine. Go vote for someone new who wants to change it. That's the Texas Penal Code quoted above.

I'd like to point out that a Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist probably has other books that have "redeeming social value."

This whole thing reminds me a bit of Farenheit 451, a book by Bradbury which has, quite amusingly, been banned in many school districts.

Christ, where does this stop? Ok, so the guy's a killer and a necrophiliac. It's also based on a true story from a guy who acted like this in Tennessee. Regardless, if we ban McCormack, what's next Faulkner or London because they were racists? Shakespeare because he was a misogynist? Whitman because he was gay? Then where?

Will the kids be allowed to read the Constitution? Those guys were slave-owners, many of them. Rapists, too, if you really want to get into what having sex with slaves actually is.

This has gone ridiculously too far. When Texas students can be suspended from school for wearing John Edwards T-shirts or telling a teacher that they are wrong, what's next?