WASHINGTON, DC- Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has introduced a bill that would ostensibly create a federal ban on pornography by redefining the definition of “obscene” under the new legislation, Newsweek reports.
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) bill would modernize the standard for prosecuting explicit content online, replacing a test established years ago by the United States Supreme Court.
If passed, the bill would dramatically change how sexual content is treated under federal law, particularly in online spaces. Lee’s bill would remove the “intent” requirement from the Communications Act of 1934, meaning people could be prosecuted for sharing or hosting content deemed to be sexually explicit and lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
The bill was introduced last week and is co-sponsored in the House by Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.). This is Lee’s third attempt at passing such legislation in the past three years.
In the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, the high court defined an obscenity standard covering three provisions: whether the average person would find the work appeals to prurient (lustful) interest, whether it depicts sexual conduct in an offensive way, and whether it lacks value.
The proposed bill would redefine that test, with the new definition of obscenity including any content that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or sexcretion,” and “depicts, describes, or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse.”
The bill would allow authorities to prosecute obscene content disseminated across state lines, or from foreign countries, and would open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online pornography, Newsweek wrote.
The bill would ostensibly broaden what kinds of explicit content could be considered a federal crime, thus leading to the criminalization of large amounts of adult conduct, including consensual expressions of sexuality.
In a statement on X, 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.”
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Lee explained his reasoning for proposing the legislation again in a statement last week.
“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 said. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”
Lee explained that the current definition of obscenity is “difficult to assess and prosecute,” while complaining that its standards are “subjective and vague.”
It is currently not illegal to simply possess obscene materials unless it involves minors or if there is an intent to sell or distribute it. Likewise, no federal law defines obscenity, and courts rely on something called the “Miller” test to determine what is obscene, named for the Supreme Court case that bears the same name.
“The new definition removes dependence on ever-changing and elusive public opinion, replacing ambiguity with practical standards to make obscenity identifiable,” said Lee. “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.”
Lee’s attempt to redefine obscenity has garnered national attention, with some opponents arguing the change would accomplish the opposite of what Lee intends, serving to make the definition of obscenity broader and more subjective.
“By discarding the concept of community standards, the IODA removes a key safeguard that allows local norms to shape what counts as obscenity,” Jacob Mchangama and Ashkhen Kazaryan from The Future of Free Speech, a non-partisan think tank, wrote in an op-ed. “Without it, the federal government could impose a single national standard that fails to account for regional differences, cultural context, or evolving social values.”
Likewise, Tanya Tate, an adult film star from England, told Unilad that she opposes Lee’s bill.
“Adults should have the freedom to choose what they watch, and it’s not the government’s job to decide that for us,” Tate said.
“This bill is just another way to control people under the excuse of ‘protecting’ them. But we don’t need protection from our own choices; we need the freedom to make them.
“Trying to force one definition of ‘obscenity’ across all 50 states is a huge step backward. Different communities have different values, and this bill ignores that.” She said nobody is getting forced to watch something online they don’t want to.
“But that decision should be up to each adult, not politicians,” Tate continued. “And let’s be real, the ones shouting the loudest about ‘morality’ are often the same ones watching behind closed doors.”
