You've got to hand it to them: GOP wants to restrict porn

[bnew]

You've got to hand it to them: GOP wants to restrict porn

A pair of congressional Republicans have introduced new legislation that would enlist the federal government in the latest target in the conservative war against free speech: banning online porn. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois...

www.dailykos.com

You've got to hand it to them: GOP wants to restrict porn​

by Oliver Willis

Daily Kos Staff

Friday, May 09, 2025 at 9:00:03a EDT

274

Comments

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is one of the co-sponsors of the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act.

A pair of congressional Republicans have introduced new legislation that would enlist the federal government in the latest target in the conservative war against free speech: banning online porn.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois are behind the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act. The law would redefine obscenity as it is currently defined at the federal level by the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the 1973 Supreme Court decision defining pornography known as the “Miller Test.” It's a three-pronged test to decide if something is obscene: Does the material appeal to prurient interests, is it patently offensive, and does it lack serious value?

“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,” Lee told the conservative Daily Caller.

Ironically, the Republicans are presenting their legislation as a measure to protect children but gave an exclusive advance preview of the bill to the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller has been notorious over the years for making light of child sexual abuse—when it isn’t publishing white supremacists or conspiracy theories.

The GOP bill would redefine the federal definition of obscenity and task federal officials with shutting down the transmission of porn across state lines.

The federal courts have traditionally found that pornography is constitutionally protected free speech under the First Amendment, and that transmitting content over state lines does not trigger standards surrounding “obscenity.”

But the proposed law is in line with ongoing Republican attacks on free speech.

The Trump administration has been abducting and detaining college students for expressing views contrary to the administration’s take on Israel and Palestine. At the same time, Trump has been suing and throwing insults at news outlets that accurately report on his failures as a political leader and human being.

Stormy Daniels

Going after porn was also part of Project 2025, the conservative plan pulled together by Trump administration alumni and the right-wing Heritage Foundation. During the 2024 presidential campaign, representatives of the adult film industry financed a “Hands Off My Porn” campaign to educate the public of the planned attacks on porn.

In addition to fulfilling the Project 2025 objective, the legislation raises further questions about why porn is being targeted.

Trump was convicted last year of 34 felony counts related to his attempts to keep his sexual affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels out of the news during the 2016 election. The stories related to Daniels have dogged Trump during his time as a political figure.

Attacking the industry that was the source of so many headaches for Trump would be in line with the pro-Trump track record of Lee and Miller. By going after the First Amendment again, congressional Republicans would hit two birds with one stone.

 

[bnew]

Lee Bill Establishes Obscenity Definition Across States

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act today to clarify the legal definition of “obscenity” for all states, making the transmission of obscene content across state lines more easily prosecuted. U.S. Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) is the...

www.lee.senate.gov

Lee Bill Establishes Obscenity Definition Across States​

May 8, 2025​

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act today to clarify the legal definition of “obscenity” for all states, making the transmission of obscene content across state lines more easily prosecuted. U.S. Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) is the bill’s co-lead in the House of Representatives.

“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,” said Senator Mike Lee. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

“The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act equips law enforcement with the tools they need to target and remove obscene material from the internet, which is alarmingly destructive and far outside the bounds of protected free speech under the Constitution. I’m proud to lead this effort in the House with Senator Lee to safeguard American families and ensure this dangerous material is kept out of our homes and off our screens.” – Representative Mary Miller

The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) clarifies the definition of obscenity across all states and provides updated descriptions suited to modern content. The new definition removes dependence on ever-changing and elusive public opinion, replacing ambiguity with practical standards to make obscenity identifiable. This change will prevent obscene material such as pornography from evading prosecution by relying on the legal confusion of differing standards between states. Under IODA, law enforcement will be empowered to identify and prevent obscenity from being transmitted across state lines.

Obscenity is already unprotected speech under the First Amendment, but its current definition makes it difficult to assess and prosecute. The current legal definition of obscenity was taken from a Supreme Court case argued in 1973. Its standards are subjective and vague, making it 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 Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA):

• Defines “obscenity” within the Communications Act of 1934 as content that:
  
  • taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,
    
  • 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,
    
  • taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
    
• Strengthens 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.
  

Click here to read exclusive coverage from The Daily Caller.

One-Pager | Bill Text

###

 

[bnew]

Spoiler: text

Commented on Sun May 11 05:56:01 2025 UTC

So porn is unprotected speech but hate speech needs to be protected? I find hate speech far more obscene then porn personally.

│
│

Spoiler: text

│ Commented on Sun May 11 07:13:48 2025 UTC
│
│ Hate appeals to their core beliefs but 'pornography' appeals to their secret shame which they must banish with hate.
│

│ │
│ │

Spoiler: text

│ │ Commented on Sun May 11 08:55:55 2025 UTC
│ │
│ │ You're not wrong.
│ │
│ │ Data Finds Republicans are Obsessed with Searching for Transgender Porn - Lawsuit.org
│ │

 

[bnew]

Spoiler: text

Commented on Sun May 11 05:56:01 2025 UTC

So porn is unprotected speech but hate speech needs to be protected? I find hate speech far more obscene then porn personally.

│
│

Spoiler: text

│ Commented on Sun May 11 06:24:14 2025 UTC
│
│ See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) for more info on the protection obscenity and hate speech, respectively.
│
│ Edit: These feel like the most important law around these topics, but there’s plenty of other stuff if you’re interested!
│

│ │
│ │

Spoiler: text

│ │ Commented on Sun May 11 07:42:49 2025 UTC
│ │
│ │ Mapp v Ohio anybody?
│ │

│ │ │
│ │ │

Spoiler: text

│ │ │ Commented on Sun May 11 09:30:54 2025 UTC
│ │ │
│ │ │ Yeah, Mapp definitely centered around an obscenity conviction and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is one of the most crucial parts of our judicial system. I would also offer Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) as something topical here.
│ │ │

│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │

Spoiler: text

│ │ │ │ Commented on Sun May 11 10:12:41 2025 UTC
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ I actually reread both Mapp and Stanley earlier this week studying for one of my final exams.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ In Mapp, the petitioner’s house was searched and then-criminalized obscene material was found for which she was charged and convicted. Both sides agree that the search was illegal and the main holding in Mapp is that the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through illegal searches (which already applied to the federal government) was incorporated against the states.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ In Stanley, 8 years later, petitioner’s house was searched legally and then-criminalized obscene material was found for which he was charged and convicted. Stanley is effectively what you described: the Court found that mere possession of obscene material cannot be criminalized because doing so is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ There is a quote I really like from Justice Marshall’s majority opinion in Stanley that I think really sums it all up: “And yet, in the face of these traditional notions of individual liberty, Georgia asserts the right to protect the individual's mind from the effects of obscenity. We are not certain that this argument amounts to anything more than the assertion that the State has the right to control the moral content of a person's thoughts. To some, this may be a noble purpose, but it is wholly inconsistent with the philosophy of the First Amendment.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565-566 (1969)
│ │ │ │

 

[bnew]

Spoiler: text

Commented on Sun May 11 06:20:03 2025 UTC

This is about more than just porn. Let me remind everyone of what they consider "porn".

Straight from the Project 2025 handbook:


Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender
ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot
inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual
liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its
purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product
is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime.
Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should
be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed
as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that
facilitate its spread should be shuttered.


This is what they're aiming for with this ban. All those book bans going on? The people putting those books into libraries and their classrooms could be arrested with this law in place.

│
│

Spoiler: text

│ Commented on Sun May 11 06:46:20 2025 UTC
│
│ The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned.
│
│
│ Sounds like they are saying even a married couple sending spicy pics to eachother should be criminally charged for producing and distributing “porn”.
│

 

[Elim Garak]

They sound like colibrehs.

 

[Richard Glidewell]

So the state that continues to fight tooth and bail to continue fukking children calling it states rights want to take away my ability to see real uncut asses at a federal level.........saw Utah off the map, throw a bomb on it while it's floating away......that fake religion weirdo ass people have to go........incel movement probably started off with mormons

 

[yardman]

They’re trying to strongarm these incels into fukking hoes.
​

 

[daemonova]

Porn didn't make me have irrational expectations on women, going to white schools did that

 

[Dont@Me]

I'm 6 weeks clean from porn and masturbation. This is making me want to binge before it all goes away

 

[b. woods]

They’re trying to strongarm these hoes into fukking inceLs.
​

Fixed.

 

[Json]

So they want a nation of young men without jobs, no homes, no girlfriends, and no porn?
And games are overpriced and delayed constantly.


But guns are even easier to get?

Might as well just wear bullseyes on your chest.

 

[NoMoreWhiteWoman2020]

I wonder if these dumbasses considered this might just give rise to AI generated porn that technically doesn’t cross state lines since it is generated at the behest of the user. Further blurring the lines between real and fantasy, or whatever argument they are making for this new bill

 

[Seoul Gleou]

At least they're consistent

They want to police dikks as much as pussies

Lets see how that works out for them

 

[Htrb-nvr-blk-&-ug-as-evr]

You've got to hand it to them: GOP wants to restrict porn

A pair of congressional Republicans have introduced new legislation that would enlist the federal government in the latest target in the conservative war against free speech: banning online porn. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois...

www.dailykos.com

You've got to hand it to them: GOP wants to restrict porn​

by Oliver Willis

Daily Kos Staff

Friday, May 09, 2025 at 9:00:03a EDT

274
Comments

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is one of the co-sponsors of the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act.

always these dirty child-fukers that want to try to define whats right. Cacs like him should be castrated for child abuse….