Lee Bill Establishes Obscenity Definition Across States

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
###