Wednesday, September 28, 2011

More on TxDot Versus Christie Craig

TxDOT is lke the dog with a chew toy that just won't let go. Discovery has started in Case No. 1:11-cv-726.  Apparently, Judge Sparks pointing out in his ruling on the TRO and permanent injunction that a romance writer can't really harm the state fell on deaf ears.

Nor did reality sink in when the state's attorney ADMITTED IN OPEN COURT that NONE of the state's trademark registrations APPLIED TO BOOKS.

In the original complaint, TxDOT's biggest objection was that Christie's book "contain numerous graphic references to sexual acts, state of arousal, etc."

Okay, TxDOT, if you're that worried about sex, why do you sell these?

Yes, this thong is available for sale by the great state of Texas.  And people wonder why I think the lawsuit against Christie is really an attack on women's rights.


  1. Thanks for keeping us in the loop on all the legal maneuvering behind the scenes. TxDot should hang their head in shame. How can they go after Ms. Craig when there are so many others using the slogan....and we won't even get to the thong episode!!!

  2. I FB this and tweeted and re tweeted your message. This is an outrage. I will help with the complaint campaign!!

  3. Thanks, Stacey!

    Unfortunately, this is no longer about protecting a trademark, but about state censorship of women.

  4. OMG, I had to laugh at this. I really think in the end, Christie is going to come out smellin' like a rose amidst a lot of "trash."

  5. Does Texas know that dozens of erotic romance authors live and work there? If all of those authors dedicated their next book to the absurdity of the Texas legal system, would that make a difference? :P

  6. Fran, I write erotica, and the thought of classifying Christie's work as 'porn' made me crack up.

    No, I don't think the idiots in Austin realize how many of us leave in Texas, and that all these writers and readers are also voters.

    This is why a group of us romance writers are asking folks to write/tweet/e-mail Gov. Perry to protest this lawsuit.