I get some of the arguments on the idea that this may lead to unintended consequences where regulatory laws lead to something more draconian (see: Prohibition). But I doubt that it will. People were saying the same thing when certain states passed a bill forcing American-based online pornography companies to verify the age of their users, saying how it might lead to forced ID verification on the internet. When in reality, it ended up being no different than buying alcohol off the internet. You just can't access porn websites like xvideo or Pornhub without ID verification. But then again, you can still access porn on social media platforms like Xitter. So I guess it really didn't matter anyways. Same thing goes with online gambling. Some people I knew thought lootboxes covered the banning of online gambing in certain states. But in reality, it only targeted places like Stake.com that were outright casinos (since it was starting to become a bigger problem). However, there is a point to be made that it's harder to regulate internationally, especially when VPNs also exist. But that's a given for everything. You can buy fake IDs right now with the Tor browser if you choose to do so, but it's still stuff banned off of the clearnet. Its just that you'll be punished for it if you're ever caught.
The point being is that not every regulatory law is inherently in violation of the constitution, or that it'll undermine the merit of the constitution. What matters the most is the contents of the text itself. If the laws being proposed or passed by Texas for their state are more draconian than they seem to be,
then please point out the text itself supporting your argument instead of just saying that there's going to be a slippery slope situation. Saying that it's going to lead to that is not a convincing argument in my opinion, because you can say that about anything and it'll lead to this unproductive as shit flame war that just happened. Don't fearmonger yourself into thinking that any regulation laws are the same as government overreaching unless the contents of the bill itself says otherwise.
Anyways, that's just my two cents on the whole discussion surrounding the bill.
As for the bill itself, from what I've read regarding the law, it SPECIFICALLY targets pornography, and not stuff that's considered by
Sec. 43.21. of Texas Penal codes as
"serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value". From my interpretation, it means that if that some retard tries to sue you or get you arrested for possessing a manga like "Berserk", or anything that contains graphic material for the purpose of story telling, it wouldn't really hold up in court unless proven otherwise. I'm gonna read through the bill and perhaps ask a few lawyer friends for clarification on a few statements.