Tag: porn

Sen. Mike Lee’s obscenity bill is a free speech nightmare straight out of Project 2025’s playbook

A new bill in Congress threatens to dictate what Americans can read, watch and say online. On May 8, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.,  introduced the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide.

While concerns about pornography, including moral and religious ones, are part of any healthy public debate, this bill does something far more dangerous: It empowers the federal government to police speech based on subjective values. When lawmakers try to enforce the beliefs of some Americans at the expense of others’ rights, they cross a constitutional line — and put the First Amendment at risk. 

The legislation aims to rewrite the legal definition of obscenity, an area of law that represents a very narrow exception to First Amendment protections.

The IODA seeks to sidestep the Supreme Court’s long-standing three-part test for obscenity, established in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The material must appeal to a prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Lee’s bill would scrap that standard and replace it with a broader, far more subjective definition. It would label content obscene if it simply focuses on nudity, sex or excretion in a way that is intended to arouse and if it lacks “serious value.” 

By discarding the concept of community standards, the IODA removes a key safeguard that allows local norms to shape what counts as obscenity. Without it, the federal government could impose a single national standard that fails to account for regional differences, cultural context or evolving social values.

The bill also deletes the requirement that material be “patently offensive,” a crucial element that keeps the obscenity test anchored in societal consensus. Instead, it replaces it with a subjective inquiry into whether the work was intended to arouse or titillate. But intent is notoriously difficult to prove and easy to allege. That language could easily sweep in a wide range of protected expression, including art, health information and sex education.

Keep reading

Redefining Obscenity: Lawmakers Take Aim at More Online Content

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.”

Keep reading

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook

Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law 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 porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“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 Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Keep reading

New GOP Bill Seeks To Take Sledgehammer To Online Porn Industry

Congressional Republicans will introduce legislation Thursday that would severely crack down on internet pornography and potentially deal a major blow to the online porn industry.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Republican Illinois Rep. Mary Miller’s Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would create a national definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 and amend the Supreme Court’s 1973 “Miller Test” for determining what qualifies as obscene, according to background on the bill exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. 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 porn.

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

Lee and Miller have been leading advocates in Congress to take on internet pornography at the federal level and protect children from exposure to online porn.

The lawmakers’ bill would make obscenity easier to prosecute by altering the three-pronged approach known as the Miller Test from the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. California, according to the background on the bill. The Miller Test determined content to be obscene if it appeals to “prurient interests,” describes sexual conduct “in a patently obscene way” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller are seeking to update that definition in part by changing the second prong about portraying sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way … specifically defined by the applicable state law.” Instead, their bill would determine content to be obscene if it depicts or describes “actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate or gratify the sexual desires of a person.”

Lee has justified the legislation in part by arguing that the Supreme Court’s “Miller Test” is no longer applicable in an era where porn is primarily viewed online and easy for children to access.

Keep reading

Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction. You Should, Too

Though porn addiction is not diagnosable, and never has been, there is a large self-help industry surrounding the concept. Mostly online (though in religious areas, such as Utah, there are numerous in-person treatment sites), this industry promotes the idea that modern access to the Internet, and the porn that thrives there, has led to an epidemic of dysregulated, out-of-control porn use, and significant life problems as a result.

Over recent years, numerous studies have begun to suggest that there is more to the story than just porn. Instead, we’ve had growing hints that the conflicts and struggles over porn use have more to do with morality and religion, rather than pornography itself. I’ve covered this surge of research in numerous posts and articles.

Now, researchers have put a nail in the coffin of porn addiction. Josh Grubbs, Samuel Perry and Joshua Wilt are some of the leading researchers on America’s struggles with porn, having published numerous studies examining the impact of porn use, belief in porn addiction, and the effect of porn on marriages. And Rory Reid is a UCLA researcher who was a leading proponent gathering information about the concept of hypersexual disorder for the DSM-5. These four researchers, all of whom have history of neutrality, if not outright support of the concepts of porn addiction, have conducted a meta-analysis of research on pornography and concluded that porn use does not predict problems with porn, but that religiosity does.

The researchers lay out their argument and theory extremely thoroughly, suggesting that Pornography Problems due to Moral Incongruence (PPMI) appear to be the driving force in many of the people who report dysregulated, uncontrollable, or problematic pornography use. Even though many people who grew up in religious, sexually conservative households have strong negative feelings about pornography, many of those same people continue to use pornography. And then they feel guilty and ashamed of their behavior, and angry at themselves and their desire to watch more.

Keep reading

Canadians’ latest plan to hit America where it hurts… and block website that’ll leave millions unsatisfied

Canadians are calling for authorities in The Land of the Maple Leaf to hit Americans where it hurts most – and ban Pornhub.

The X-rated pornography site, which is Canadian-owned, gathers nearly 40 percent of its traffic from the United States, according to their last yearly review. 

As the trade war between the US and Canada continues on, those over the northern border are calling for the drastic measure. 

One of those includes Matthew Puzhitsky, who shared a now viral video to his Instagram in which he called for the site to be pulled in the US.

In his clip, Puzhitsky referred to the idea as Canada‘s secret ‘nuke’ and hilariously deemed it a ‘mic drop’ moment. 

Speaking with The New York Post, he added: ‘If Canada could ban Pornhub in the states, we win the trade war. That’s it. There is no trade war.’

Since the video was shared online, a petition calling for Canadian authorities to block Pornhub in the states was also published online. 

It has yet to gather any real steam online, receiving only 52 signatures as of Saturday morning. 

Keep reading

Mike Lee’s App Store Accountability Act Would Make Google and Apple Check IDs

Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee has introduced a bill to keep porn out of app stores. There might just be one tiny problem here: They already do.

So, what’s the point? Dig a little deeper and you’ll see that this bill is about forcing age verification on app stores and mobile devices, with a side goal of chilling sex-related speech.

Lee is framing his new bill (S. 5364) as a matter of “accountability”—a word found right in the bill’s title—and of preventing “big corporations” from “victimiz[ing] kids” with “sexual and violent content.” We can’t count on tech companies to act “moral” on their own accord, Lee posted to X.

But big corporations like Google and Apple already ban apps featuring sexual content, and these bans extend not just to kids but to everybody.

While apps can be downloaded from a plethora of sources, there are two main centralized app marketplaces: Apple’s App Store, for iPhones, and the Google Play store, for Androids. Play Store guidelines reject all apps “that contain or promote sexual content or profanity, including pornography, or any content or services intended to be sexually gratifying.” The App Store explicitly prohibits apps featuring “overtly sexual or pornographic material,” which it defines broadly to include any “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” Apple also bans “hookup” apps and any other “apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution.”

Lee’s bill can’t be about simply convincing Apple and Google to adopt his version of morality, since they already have.

Keep reading

Montana’s Porn Age Verification Law Is Headed to Court

It seems that a puritanical wave is sweeping the country as state governments increasingly try to make it more difficult to access pornography from within their borders. A lawsuit is challenging one of those laws, and this week, a federal judge allowed it to continue.

Montana is one of multiple states in recent years to pass a law requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages. Under Senate Bill 544, any website that “knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors” must “perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of individuals attempting to access the material,” so long as the site in question “contains a substantial portion of the material.”

The statute defines “material harmful to minors” as, essentially, the depiction of any sexual acts, covering everything from straightforward pornography all the way up to and including “bestiality.” It further notes that “reasonable age verification methods” can take the form of “a digitized identification card” or some other system that either checks a user’s “government-issued identification” or otherwise “relies on public or private transactional data.”

While perhaps well-intended, the law is a civil liberties nightmare: First of all, as a general rule, pornography is free speech protected by the First Amendment. And as Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote in the April 2024 issue of Reason, the sort of age verification law that some states now favor “creates a record, permanently attaching real identities to online activity that many people would prefer stay private,” and “even the best verification methods would leave people vulnerable to hackers and snoops.”

The law also stipulates that it applies when the material in question constitutes “more than 33 1/3% of total material on a website,” meaning a site could be forced to enact an onerous age-verification scheme even if well over half of its hosted content does not meet the state’s definition of disallowed material. One imagines that porn sites could simply load up their servers with enough inoffensive content to stay on the right side of that ratio, but instead, sites like Pornhub have simply blocked access in Montana, as they have in many other states that have passed these laws.

In May 2024, a group of organizations and individuals led by the Free Speech Coalition filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the law. Per the lawsuit, S.B. 544 “operates as a presumptively-unconstitutional prior restraint on speech” since it requires “the use of some particularized approval method as a condition to providing protected expression.”

Keep reading

U.S. Capitol Hit by Large-Scale Dark Web Cyber Attack, Passwords Leaked Through Staffers Signing Up for “Adult Websites” and “Dating Apps”

Over 3,000 congressional staffers’ personal information has been leaked across the dark web in a wide-scale cyberattack on the Capitol.

Switzerland based security firm Proton, disovered 1,800 passwords used by staffers at the Capitol are avaible on the dark web.

In an investigation, Proton along with the the United States based firm Constella Intelligence, revealed 1 in 5 congressional staffers had personal information exposed on teh dark web.

In the report, Proton shared, the leaks made their way to the dark web through several sorces such as adult websites, social media and dating apps.

In a statement to The Washington Times, Proton stated, “Many of these leaks likely occurred because staffers used their official email addresses to sign up for various services, including high-risk sites such as dating and adult websites, which were later compromised in data breaches.”

Keep reading

San Francisco City Attorney Sues Sites That “Undress” Women With AI

San Francisco’s City Attorney has filed a lawsuit against the owners of 16 websites that have allowed users to “nudify” women and young girls using AI.

The office of San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu on Aug. 15 said he was suing the owners of 16 of the “most-visited websites” that allow users to “undress” people in a photo to make “nonconsensual nude images of women and girls.”

A redacted version of the suit filed in the city’s Superior Court alleges the site owners include individuals and companies from Los Angeles, New Mexico, the United Kingdom and Estonia who have violated California and United States laws on deepfake porn, revenge porn and child sexual abuse material.

The websites are far from unknown, either. The complaint claims that they have racked up 200 million visits in just the first half of the year.

One website boasted that it allows its users to “see anyone naked.” Another says, “Imagine wasting time taking her out on dates when you can just use [the website] to get her nudes,” according to the complaint.

Keep reading