Two Republican lawmakers are advancing a bill that could dramatically expand the federal government’s ability to criminalize certain content online.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Mary Miller of Illinois have introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), legislation that aims to overhaul the legal definition of obscenity and give prosecutors wide authority to target more online content.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Supporters of the bill claim it is designed to protect families and children from harmful material, but civil liberties advocates warn that its sweeping language threatens to criminalize large swaths of constitutionally protected expression.
IODA discards key elements of the Supreme Court’s long-standing Miller test, which has served as the nation’s benchmark for identifying obscene content since 1973. Under that framework, courts assess whether material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive” way by community standards, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Lee and Miller’s bill replaces that careful balancing test with a rigid federal definition. According to the proposed language, content is considered obscene if “taken as a whole, [it] appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,” if it “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 if it “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Promoting the bill, Lee declared, “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.” He added, “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”
Representative Miller characterized the legislation as a necessary tool for law enforcement, saying it “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.” She stated that their intent is to “safeguard American families and ensure this dangerous material is kept out of our homes and off our screens.”
But legal scholars and civil liberties organizations are raising alarms. The bill’s definition of obscenity eliminates key legal safeguards such as the requirement that content be “patently offensive” under contemporary community standards. That omission, say critics, opens the door to prosecuting even mainstream or artistic representations.
The bill also proposes to revise federal rules around telecommunications by stripping out the requirement that “obscene” calls must be made with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass in order to be criminal. Under IODA, any “obscene” communication over a phone, regardless of context or consent, could be subject to prosecution. That change could sweep in phone sex services, private webcam sessions, or consensual messages between adults.
Though the bill is framed as an effort to protect minors, its broad application would affect all users, regardless of age.
