Bill to ban porn is moral pandering that swipes at bros who went right
Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar?
Well, never fear, Utah Senator Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab.
Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography.
The bill would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court's 1973 'Miller Test' for determining what qualifies as obscene. Content could be deemed obscene if it depicts or describes 'actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person.'
That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it.
Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography.
So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men.
Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, 'manosphere' is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year.
We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes — many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets.
The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, 'anti-woke' crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid — and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite.
It tells them: You, too, are the problem.
It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become — whether we like it or not — a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash.
And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns — it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the 'anti-woke' movement.
Instead of focusing on real issues — economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education — this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing.
There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics.
Opinion: We asked readers about arrest of Milwaukee Judge Dugan. Here's what you said.
And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns— but not with Google.'
The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age.
And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry — it's part of their own voter base.
Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: GOP porn bill says we trust you with guns but not Google | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Donohoe: Pharma Tariffs Could Cost Ireland 75,000 Jobs
00:00 The pharma tariffs is one thing that, you know, President Trump has promised that those will come very soon. He said that last week. That's a sector where we know that Ireland has particular exposure as well. How are you quantifying those risks? How serious do you see that as being potential damage to the Irish economy? So it's very difficult to quantify what the risks could be while a decision has yet to be made regarding what America may do. From a general point of view, The macroeconomic modelling that we've done for the Irish economy would indicate that there could be approximately 75,000 jobs that could be affected by it across the medium term, with 20 to 25 of those affected across next year. And it's indicated that from a growth perspective, there could be 1 to 1 and a half points of growth that we could lose across the medium term. But again, to put that in the context of what our strengths are, with 2.7 million people at work, we have a growth outlook for our economy even now of 2 maybe even more than 2% per year. So those risks could materialise. They will become clearer in the time ahead. But the reason why these companies have part of their global supply chains here in Ireland is because we've the skill, the experience and the competitiveness built up to keep them in our country. And we will look down at how we can maintain that, even if the trade environment around it does begin to change. What sort of tools would you be looking at? I mean, if you're talking about there being a potential of 75,000 job losses? Well, in terms of the job losses, it's not really jobs that could be lost. That could happen. It could also be jobs that might otherwise not be created And again, looking at all of that, we still believe if that were to happen, it will happen at a time in which the number of people at work in Ireland would still be, by our standards, at a historic high. In terms of the decisions that are available to us to respond back. It is many of the matters we're working on at the moment how we can increase investment levels within our economy. If you look at Mike's article in the business post yesterday about Ireland, he talked about our strengths, but he also pointed to the need to invest. He also talked about the need to maintain openness within our economy. And Minister Chambers and I, who, as you know, it's the Minister who focuses a lot on our public expenditure. I looking at the investment decisions we can make in energy and infrastructure in the next few years, that could strengthen our economy at a moment of change so they are the big decisions that we're looking at at the moment.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court to consider if forcibly shaven inmate can seek damages
The Supreme Court took up Monday a case on whether a former Louisiana inmate can receive damages from prison officials for forcibly shaving his dreadlocks despite his Rastafari beliefs. A lower court 'emphatically' condemned Damon Landor's treatment but said the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) provided no pathway for him to sue the officials for damages in their individual capacities. Backed by the Trump administration, Landor hopes the Supreme Court will rule the other way, allowing him and other inmates to get compensation when their religious liberty rights are violated. The case is set to be considered during the Supreme Court's next annual term. Oral arguments are likely to be set during the late fall or winter, with a decision expected by next summer. It follows a unanimous 8-0 decision the court issued in 2020 finding that RLUIPA's sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), allows for damages suits. But RFRA only applies to the federal government. RLUIPA applies to state officials, and it is specifically aimed at protecting religious rights in land regulations and prisons. The statute only allows substantial burdens on someone's religious exercise if the government demonstrates it furthers a compelling governmental interest, and its action is the least restrictive means to do so. 'The denial of a damages remedy to vindicate RLUIPA's substantive protections would undermine that important purpose. And the circumstances precluding relief here are not unique,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings. Landor's attorneys at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Casey Denson Law agreed, saying the widespread implications merit the court's review. 'More than one million people are incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. Under the prevailing rule in the circuit courts, those individuals are deprived of a key remedy crucial to obtaining meaningful relief,' the petition reads. The Republican-controlled Louisiana attorney general's office, however, takes the opposite view. In court papers, the state acknowledged Landor's story is 'antithetical to religious freedom and fair treatment of state prisoners' and insisted it has changed its prison grooming policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. But the state believes RLIUPA doesn't provide the damages pathway that Landor seeks, stressing that RLIUPA relies on a different part of the Constitution than the other statute. 'Serious consequences would flow from Petitioner's view, if adopted,' the state wrote. 'For example, the current staffing shortage in state prisons would only grow worse if current staff and potential job applicants learned that they would be personally liable for money damages.' The Supreme Court meanwhile declined to take up a second, near-identical case arising from a devout Hindu who was wrongfully convicted of sexual abuse. Sanjay Tripathy, whose lawyers also represent Landor, said New York officials violated his religious rights when assigning him to a counseling program for sex offenders. The program requires participants to accept responsibility, but since Tripathy is innocent of those charges, he said the program violated the core Hindu tenet against lying. The court appears to be holding Tripathy's case until it can decide Landor's appeal, as requested by their attorneys.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices trim gains as investor concerns over Iranian supply risks ease
Oil futures trimmed gains on Monday morning as investor concerns over the threat of supply disruptions stemming from US strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities faded. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, was up less than 1% after gaining as much as 5.7% when the futures market opened Sunday night. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also rose about 0.6% to trade above $74 per barrel. Monday's price response was muted as Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities — including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva said. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping or targeting US naval bases in the region. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. 'Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon—closer to $6.00 if you're in California,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. 'If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains,' she said. 'But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher.' Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers — such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003, and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018 — have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. 'During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period,' JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from 'regime changes' in oil-producing countries — whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. 'While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak,' Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
