Newly proposed bill could lead to ban on all online pornography in the US
An act has been proposed by two Republican party members seeking to 'update' the legal definition of 'obscenity'. It could effectively ban pornography and ensure people are 'prosecuted' for sharing it.
Republican senator of Utah, Mike Lee, and Republican representative of Illinois Mary Miller have put forward a bill titled the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act.
The proposed act sets to clamp down harder on the consumption of 'obscene content,' suggesting an amendment to the Supreme Court's 1973 'Miller test' and creating a national definition of what constitutes obscenity.
Essentially, the bill seeks to tackle 'obscene' content at a federal level and make it easier to prosecute which could lead to pornographic content being banned.
Advert
But what's the US' current stance on obscenity and porn?
What is the US' current stance on obscenity and porn?
In the United States, pornography is wildly available to purchase and access online legally.
However, it becomes illegal when pornography is 'knowingly distributed to minors under 18,' Cornell Law School explains. It's also illegal if an individual in a piece of media doesn't give their consent for it to be shared and if the media depicts a minor under the age of 18 in a sexual act.
The Miller Test - from the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Miller v California - offers a 'three-pronged approach' when it comes to identifying whether any written material, art, or film is deemed obscene and is subsequently not protected by the First Amendment and can be prohibited if the average person would find that it:
- 'appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion)'
- 'depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way'
- 'lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value'
Lee and Miller are seeking to change the second prong in particular.
What does Mike Lee and Mary Miller's bill propose?
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) 'clarifies the definition of obscenity across all states and provides updated descriptions suited to modern content,' a press release on Lee's website reads.
The bill argues the current definition of obscenity is 'difficult to assess and prosecute' and the 'current legal definition of obscenity was taken from a Supreme Court case argued in 1973,' branding the case's 'standards' as 'subjective and vague' and 'difficult to apply with certainty to any given material'.
"Using a pre-internet standard for modern times presents serious challenges – particularly when states use differing definitions for 'obscenity' – and allows criminals to evade prosecution," the bill argues.
Lee's website explains the 'new definition' for obscenity would 'remove dependence on ever-changing and elusive public opinion, replacing ambiguity with practical standards to make obscenity identifiable'.
It could be the first step in a federal porn ban.
But what does the act define obscenity as?
What Mike Lee and Mary Miller's bill defines 'obscenity' as
The act subsequently suggests defining obscenity within the Communications Act of 1934 as content that 'taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion'.
Alongside anything which 'depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person' and finally 'taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value'.
The act will also 'strengthen the existing general prohibition on obscenity in the Communications Act (47 U.S.C 223(a)) by removing the “intent” requirement that only prohibits the transmission of obscenity for the purposes abusing, threatening, or harassing a person'.
So what impact could this bill have should it go through?
What could the impacts of the bill be?
Well, if it goes through, the bill could lead to anyone sharing obscene or pornographic content being prosecuted.
The part of the bill about 'transmission of obscenity' has also raised questions - given this could target the work, for example, of phone sex operators or cam girls.
And it's not limited to potentially only impacting phone sex operators or cam girls either - if any member of the public sends a saucy text, what's to stop the bill coming for them too?
"Under IODA, law enforcement will be empowered to identify and prevent obscenity from being transmitted across state lines," it argues.
Miller added it's the act's intentions to 'equip law enforcement' with better 'tools' to 'target and remove obscene material from the internet'.
He argues current obscene material is 'alarmingly destructive and far outside the bounds of protected free speech under the Constitution'.
Lee echoed: "Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children.
"Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted."
Topics: Adult Industry, US News, Politics
Poppy Bilderbeck