New Bill Could Ban Pornography Across US
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A new bill introduced by Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, would create a federal ban on pornography by redefining what qualifies as "obscene" under law.
The legislation, called the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), seeks to modernize the standard for prosecuting explicit content online, replacing a decades-old test established by the Supreme Court.
Newsweek has contacted the proponents of the bill for more information on the legislation via email.
Why It Matters
If passed, IODA could dramatically change how sexual content is treated under federal law, especially in online spaces. The bill proposes stripping the "intent" requirement from the current Communications Act of 1934, meaning individuals could face prosecution for sharing or hosting content deemed to be sexually explicit and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
What To Know
The bill, introduced on Thursday, is co-sponsored by Illinois Representative Mary Miller, another Republican, and represents the third attempt by Lee to pass such legislation since 2022.
The legislation would revise the obscenity standard that authorities have used since the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller vs. California decision, which critics say is outdated and difficult to enforce, especially in the digital age.
The Miller Test, named after the 1973 decision, currently includes three criteria: whether the average person would find the work appeals to prurient interest, whether it depicts sexual conduct in an offensive way, and whether it lacks value.
The age-restriction warning screen of the website PornHub is displayed on two digital screens.
The age-restriction warning screen of the website PornHub is displayed on two digital screens.
Getty Images
In place of that test, the new bill's definition of obscenity would now include any content that "appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion," and "depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse."
If passed, the bill would pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online pornography.
It would broaden what kinds of explicit content may be considered a federal crime, potentially criminalizing large amounts of adult content, including consensual expressions of sexuality.
What People Are Saying
In a statement on X, formerly Twitter, Utah Senator Mike Lee said: "Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. But hazy, unenforceable definitions have allowed pornography companies to infect our society, peddle smut to children, and do business across state lines unimpeded.
"Today I introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act with Representative Mary Miller, establishing a comprehensive definition of obscene materials under federal law.
"This is a first and necessary step to stopping the people and companies that profit from degrading their fellow human beings and ruining countless lives."
What Happens Next
Congress will consider the legislation this month, though it is not clear if it will receive bipartisan support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
Indianapolis Star
29 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why won't Republicans call on Joe Hogsett to resign?
It is shocking that only one out of six Republicans on the Indianapolis City-County Council have called on Mayor Joe Hogsett to resign following sexual harassment allegations that have rocked his office in recent months. Many constituents of Republican councilors are frustrated that their caucus has been more passive than council Democrats, three of whom are on record saying Hogsett should resign. It is hard to trust your leaders when they stay silent about a moral and ethical issue, especially involving one of their political enemies. If anyone should have the courage to speak up, it should be Republicans. Unlike their Democratic colleagues, Republicans don't have to worry about Hogsett continuing to be a power broker in their party for several years due to their trouble building an independent political machine. '[Calling on Hogsett to resign] could cause personal financial hardship to people,' Democratic Councilor Jesse Brown, the first to call on Hogsett to resign, told me. '[And he] is in good with all the biggest donors and he has a ton of money in the bank and so … he absolutely could you know levy those connections or that money to sink people's political careers.' Briggs: Hogsett's texts to women show Indianapolis mayor embodied toxic culture When I asked Republican Minority Leader Michael-Paul Hart why he hasn't called on Hogsett to resign, he said he didn't want to get political. He has focused his criticism on the investigation into Hogsett, rather than Hogsett himself. After all, many are starting to think the investigation was just a PR stunt aimed at clearing him of legal liability. 'I try to be as apolitical as possible because I think local government is just non-political … we're always talking about roads, water, trash, public safety,' Hart said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to focus on what we can control and what is symbolic.' Gov. Mike Braun expressed a similar sentiment when asked by WIBC-FM (93.1) host Nigel Laskowski about the scandal. 'What I'm more concerned about would be the potholes per linear mile,' Braun said June 18. I don't think fixing potholes, criticizing a political process and taking a moral stance against political leaders engaging in ethical violations should be mutually exclusive. However, Hogsett still controls the city budget and Council President Vop Osili appears to be positioning himself to succeed Hogsett. Either person could retaliate against Republicans who chose to make trouble and divert city funds away from their districts. Opinion: I was dragged out by sheriff's deputies. Indiana Democrats stayed silent. 'I try to remind folks all the time there's … 240,000 people that the six of us (Republicans) represent and I would certainly not want them to be disenfranchised,' Hart told me when I asked if he thought Hogsett would retaliate against Republicans. 'But I would hope that the mayor wouldn't punish the people of our districts for something of that nature.' Several councilors and their employers are also financially dependent on contracts with the city-county government, which Hogsett could push to terminate if councilors call on him to resign. Hart, for example, is employed as a director by SHI International, which has a six million dollar contract through 2027 with Indianapolis. The risk of retaliation, however, did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from calling on former Attorney General Curtis Hill to resign after he faced allegations of groping, and did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from condemning former Indiana Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor after he faced allegations of sexual harassment. Taking the personal risk to call for greater ethical standards for political leaders may not fix the roads, but it will do something just as important. It will rebuild public trust in local leaders by providing some concrete evidence that they subscribe to a set of moral standards, and that they want our political system to be just and fair for both their constituents and employees.
