US to ban pornography, all ‘adult content' websites? Here's what Interstate Obscenity Definition Act says
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), a piece of legislation, aims to update Supreme Court's decades-old standard for prosecuting obscene content online.
If IODA gets approved, it could significantly alter federal law's treatment of sexual content, particularly in online contexts.
Speaking to Mashable, adult industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein said, 'It may as well be an outright ban on pornography because basically, under [Lee's] definition, all adult entertainment, all forms of pornography, will be deemed obscene.'
Representative Mary Miller of Illinois has co-sponsored the bill, which was submitted on Thursday. Notably, this is Lee's third attempt to enact legislation of this kind since 2022.
Also Read: Trump asks Saudi Crown Prince MBS 'How Do You Sleep at Night?' in bizarre speech, takes dig at Tim Cook
It would update the profanity test that has been used by regulators since the Miller v. California ruling of the Supreme Court in 1973. Critics claim that this criteria is out of date and challenging to implement, particularly in the digital age.
If approved, the bill will permit for federal limitations or prohibitions on online pornography and allow for the prosecution of pornographic material that is distributed across state lines or from other nations.
It may criminalize a lot of adult content, including consenting displays of sexuality, and expand the types of graphic information that could be classified as federal crimes.
Taking to X, Utah Senator Lee wrote: '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.'
This is the first and most important step in preventing the individuals and businesses who make money by dehumanizing their fellow humans and destroying countless lives, he added.
This month, the Congress will consider the proposal, However, it is unclear whether it will have bipartisan support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
12 minutes ago
- The Print
Why activists see SC order on removal of stray dogs as ‘violation' of 2023 ABC rules
Fixing an eight-week deadline to remove stray dogs from streets, the SC has warned of strict action against anyone obstructing the drive. The apex court's order is in the public interest and comes in the backdrop of rabies and dog bite cases, which are on the rise. The move marks a sharp departure from India's two-decade-old policy for stray dog management. For years, courts have attempted to tackle the issue, and every time, they have chosen to balance animal welfare with public safety. Most court-led solutions, however, have faltered in practice due to the inefficiency of civic agencies, say activists. New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday directed civic bodies to remove all stray dogs from the streets in Delhi-NCR within eight weeks, thereafter, housing them in dog shelters in the Capital, but activists say the order violates the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2013, and risks public health setbacks. Under the ABC Rules, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, municipal bodies are to conduct extensive sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs, without any animal cruelty involved, as well as follow up and monitor the process. Under the rules, sterilised and vaccinated stray dogs have to be released in their original locations and cannot be permanently relocated. Permanent removal is allowed only for rabid or aggressive dogs, and even then, civic bodies must follow set procedures. Two high courts, in Bombay and Kerala, have upheld the 2023 ABC Rules. Its ultimate objective is to bring the stray dog population under control and implement an anti-rabies programme, with the corporation helming the cause. Also Read: Locked & chained inside car, pet dog dies as owners roam Taj Mahal Past court efforts & why they failed In 2009, the Supreme Court stopped the culling of street dogs, ruling that sterilisation and vaccination under the ABC programme are the only legal methods to control their population. However, implementation has been weak and riddled with shortcomings. High courts in Kerala, Bombay, Karnataka, and Delhi have repeatedly directed authorities to speed up sterilisation, establish shelters, and submit progress reports. Yet, little has changed on the ground. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the ABC rules framed under it forbid the killing of healthy and non-rabies dogs. On Monday, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, hearing a case on rabies deaths, said, 'This should be the first and foremost exercise—to make all localities free of stray dogs. There should not be any compromise in undertaking any exercise.' When told that the ABC rules mandated the release of sterilised dogs, the court asked those present in the court to 'forget the rules for the time being'. Justice Pardiwala stressed, 'We are not doing this for us; it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest.' This stand of SC, however, contradicts its October 2022 order, which was pronounced by a bench led by then Justice Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) and Justice J.K. Maheshwari. 'Street dogs cannot be held in captivity,' it said. 'Certainly, adoption and keeping stray dogs in captivity is not acceptable,' the bench, at the time, observed and stayed the Nagpur bench order of the Bombay High Court, requiring those interested in feeding stray dogs to adopt them, bring them home, register them with civic authorities, or put them in dog shelters. The SC directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to identify locations for feeding stray dogs and also warned the general public against causing any public nuisance through their dog-feeding drives. Later, in July 2024, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol emphasised the ABC rules, while rejecting a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding hazards caused by stray dogs. The PIL highlighted the increasing menace of street dogs, seeking court permission for the municipal authorities to deal with such issues. Refusing to entertain the PIL, the bench, at the time, observed that there must be a balance between animals' rights and public protection or safety. The courts have now diminished the relevance of the ABC Rules, as pointed out in response to previous such petitions. A careful consideration of the ABC Rules would resolve many problems, the bench noted. Finally, the court held that citizens approach their respective state high courts, and based on the ABC Rules, they must resolve the stray dog menace in that state. In contrast, the Supreme Court's Monday order directs the civic bodies in Delhi-NCR to remove all stray dogs from public spaces, house them in shelters, and stop adoptions, asking authorities to make a move that directly conflicts with the ABC framework, animal rights activists argue. The court passed the order despite vocal protests from the counsel appearing for an animal rights body. However, the court advised the counsel not to argue further. The Delhi HC is currently hearing three petitions in connection with the stray dog menace in the Capital. In one of the petitions, animal rights bodies are seeking contempt proceedings against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Activists are apprehensive that SC's fresh order may preempt the HCs from proceeding against the corporation for not performing the mandate under the ABC Rules. 'Order violates ABC rules' Describing the order as shocking and one contrary to global public health guidance, animal protection experts warn that the order could lead to unnecessary suffering in dog shelters. Calling it 'shocking' and 'an off-handed approach,' Gauri Mulekhi, a trustee of People for Animals, India's largest animal welfare organisation, told ThePrint, 'This seems very uncharacteristic of an apex court of justice of a country with compassion in its DNA.' Mulekhi pointed out that the court, unprecedentedly, cited a dialogue from the Hollywood movie, The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: 'When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk'. She also highlighted that the court disregarded a fact placed on record—not a single human death is connected with rabies in Delhi, Mulekhi said. She, urging people to unite to care for street animals, noted that lakhs of lives could be affected due to the SC order. FIAPO or Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations, in a public statement, opposed the SC's Monday order, citing 'public health risks and legal violations'. Discussing the new order and how it is against the ABC Rules, FIAPO said that the rules 'fully aligned with WHO recommendations', with sterilised and vaccinated community dogs mandatorily returned to their original territories after treatment. Forced removal directly contravenes these provisions and disregards proven in-situ management models that brought rabies cases down to near-zero in cities, it added. Condemning loss of even one life to rabies, the protesters have called for 'mass vaccination, sterilisation, and waste management instead of mass removal, a science-backed approach that protects both people and animals'. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also Read: Delhi's sterilisation centres key to managing human-stray dog conflict. But they're all blood & filth
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
We all have to bow to high command's decisions
Bengaluru: Reactingto Minister for Cooperation K.N. Rajanna's resignation, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar said on Monday that all the leaders and workers bow to the high command's decisions. 'Rajanna is my close friend. We have pursued politics together for 25 years. I am also pained. Nothing can be done; it is a party decision. You all know the context in which this decision has been taken. We all have to bow to the decision of the party high command,' said Shivakumar. He said that he was informed about the decision by the Chief Minister. 'Ministers and MLAs do not come under my jurisdiction. In the case of MLAs, we can issue notices and take minor actions, but the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) leader controls the legislators,' he claimed. Meanwhile, sources said that Monday's development has strengthened Deputy Chief Minister Shivakumar's position within the Congress party over Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. Rajanna, a close associate of Siddaramaiah, had openly supported Siddaramaiah while targeting Shivakumar. Rajanna, who was the State Cooperation Minister, was asked to submit his resignation after his remark against the LoP Rahul Gandhi's press conference on the voter fraud. 'If there was voter fraud, the state Congress should have pointed it out much earlier,' he had said. Meanwhile, taking to social media X, BJP State President and MLA B.Y. Vijayendra said that Rajanna, a senior ST leader and Cooperation Minister, was removed from the cabinet for merely speaking the truth - an honest admission which every Kannadiga knows. 'Yet in the Congress party, truth is treated as a threat, especially when it comes from a leader of a marginalised community whose voice they have long tried to silence.' 'This is the true face of Congress, anti-Dalit, anti-ST, anti-democratic and anti-truth. It also exposes the hollowness of Siddaramaiah's claims of championing the AHINDA cause. When leaders from these communities are targeted, he does not defend them. Instead, he bows to the diktats of the Delhi High Command to safeguard his own position as Chief Minister,' said Vijayendra.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
12 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump takes control of DC Police, deploys National Guard in historic move
President Donald Trump announced on August 11 that his administration would assume direct control of Washington, DC's Metropolitan Police Department and deploy around 800 National Guard troops, citing what he described as an 'urgent crime problem'. The announcement, made during a White House press conference, marks the first time a president has exercised such authority over the city's policing since Washington was granted limited self-governance through the 1973 Home Rule Act. What does the Home Rule Act say Washington's historically majority Black population did not elect its own city council and mayor until Republican President Richard Nixon signed the Home Rule Act in 1973. While the legislation allowed greater local control, it preserved significant powers for the president and Congress. Section 740 of the Act permits the president to take over the Metropolitan Police Department for up to 48 hours in an emergency, with possible extensions to 30 days. No president had used this authority until now. The US Constitution designates the District of Columbia as the federal seat of power under the jurisdiction of Congress rather than any state. Although the Home Rule Act transferred many powers to the city's elected leadership, the president retained considerable residual authority. Trump takes over the police, cites rising violence Trump cited several recent high-profile violent incidents as justification for his decision, including the killing of a 21-year-old congressional intern and the assault of a news staff member during an attempted carjacking. 'This is liberation day in DC, and we're going to take our Capitol back,' he said, describing the intervention as a necessary step to restore public safety. "This has to be the best run place in the country, not the worst run place in the country," Trump added. Statistics say otherwise DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and other local officials condemned the move as 'unprecedented' and unnecessary. The statistics also speak the same as the violent crime in the city has fallen to its lowest level in three decades, after an increase in 2023. Carjackings dropped by about 50 per cent in 2024 and have continued to decline this year. More than half of those arrested for such crimes are juveniles, a fact the Trump administration argues highlights weaknesses in the city's justice system and has reignited debate over sentencing and rehabilitation Trump activates 800 National Guard troops in DC The president's order also involved the activation of the National Guard in Washington. This is not without precedent, Trump deployed the Guard during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, when members were criticised for flying a helicopter too low over a crowd, and again on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the US Capitol. Trump's second-term actions in Washington come as a legal battle continues over his deployment of the Guard in Los Angeles, another Democratic-led city, despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom. His authority there is less clear, but an appeals court has so far refused to intervene. Uncertain duration and potential legal challenge Trump did not specify how long the federal control would last. Legal experts expect the move to be challenged in court. Congress still holds authority over DC's budget and laws passed by its council, but would have to repeal the Home Rule Act to expand presidential powers further, a measure likely to face strong opposition from most Democrats. The law applies only to Washington, DC, and does not affect other US cities with home rule powers under their respective state governments.
