Porn would become crime under Republican proposal
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would add all pornography, including any depiction of sexual acts that 'lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,' to the definition of obscenity. This would make it illegal to distribute or consume porn, regardless of the material's intent. Currently, only porn intended to 'abuse, threaten, or harass' someone is illegal.
Diddy threatened to blackmail Cassie with 'Freak Off' videos: Testimony
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) who also had a hand in the new proposal, said it would 'equip 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 speech under the Constitution.'
The proposed act would define 'obscenity' as content that:
Appeals to an excessive amount of interest in nudity or sex
Shows or describes real or fake sexual acts
Lacks scientific, political, artistic or literary value
The act would also remove 'the 'intent' requirement that only prohibits the transmission of obscenity for the purposes [of] abusing, threatening or harassing a person,' according to a release from Lee's office.
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would, in effect, widen the scope of obscenity defined by Supreme Court cases Jacobellis v. Ohio and Miller v. California, which helped shape the current American definition of the word.
Former Colleton County clerk of court arrested on felony charges
Thomas C. Arthur, with Emory University School of Law, wrote about the potential problems that could arise from banning 'obscene material' in the Emory Law Journal. In his paper, he wrote:
'First, 'obscene' pornography is difficult, if not impossible, to define satisfactorily under basic First Amendment principles … The current definition does not come close to reaching the materials that allegedly corrupt the moral tone of society, the health of relationships and family life, and the status of women.'
$1M in cocaine seized at Texas border crossing
Arthur also believes that banning porn could lead to freedom of expression being restricted overall.
Lee says obscenity isn't protected under the First Amendment and adds that some legal definitions has put 'extreme pornography' within the reach of children: 'Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down.'
The law was pushed by Project 2025, a conservative policy plan that had been written before President Donald Trump's second term. Project 2025, which is over 900 pages, reportedly stated that 'pornography should be outlawed.' It also said that 'the people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned,' and companies that 'facilitate its spread should be shuttered.'
Cassie testified she became opioid dependent after Diddy's 'Freak Offs'
Adult industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein spoke with Mashable about the proposed law. He said, 'It may as well be an outright ban on pornography.'
Ricci Levy, president and CEO of the sexual freedom nonprofit Woodhull Freedom Foundation, told Mashable that if 'you look at the broad picture of censorship that's going on,' it appears legislators are trying to turn Project 2025's policy proposals into law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote.
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
Team Trump is right to sue NYC over its ‘sanctuary' laws — but Mayor Adams isn't the one to blame
Team Trump had no choice but to sue New York City over its disastrous sanctuary-city laws, especially after a pair of illegal immigrants were accused of shooting an off-duty Border Patrol agent in a Manhattan park. But if President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem think Mayor Eric Adams, the NYPD or any other city agency is in any way responsible for those laws, they're badly mistaken. The suit names Adams, the police and other agencies and officials as well as the City Council as defendants. Citing Adams might be a legal necessity; it explicitly lists him 'in his official capacity,' and it concedes that he has opposed Gotham's sanctuary laws. Advertisement Yet Team Trump has also expressed anger at the mayor personally for the city's failure to cooperate with ICE in rounding up illegal immigrants, particularly criminal ones. Noem blasted Adams outright, along with the council, after Saturday night's border-guard shooting. 'This officer is in the hospital today, fighting for his life, because of the policies of the mayor of the city and the City Council,' Noem roared. Advertisement 'When I look at what Mayor Adams has done to New York City, it breaks my heart to see the families that have suffered because of his policies.' Noem is right to be mad at the council, but she couldn't be more wrong about Adams. Again, he's fought to roll back sanctuary laws. He tried to allow ICE agents back into Rikers so they can take custody of illegal immigrants in the safety of the jails, rather than on the streets, where the dangers are greater and more agents are required. Advertisement He has been cooperating with border czar Tom Homan, and is on record saying he wants to work with the feds. For his pains he's been attacked by the hard left and called an extremist. But the law is the law, and city government must follow it. As Adams noted correctly Friday, any changes to the laws 'must come through the City Council.' Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If the Justice Department's suit can force the council to scrap its sanctuary rules, it'll be a great boon to public safety. Those laws, like the state's sanctuary laws, allow violent illegal-immigrant criminals to elude detention and deportation. Indeed, the city has been ignoring ICE detainers by the thousands, leaving potentially violent illegal immigrants free to roam the streets. The pair accused of shooting the border guard had been in custody here and ICE had requested NYC Corrections to detain them for deportation, yet they were let go anyway. The suit also seems to be on firm grounds legally: The Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court make it clear that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. And while states and cities aren't obligated to help with that, they're not allowed to impede federal agents' efforts. Advertisement Letting a wanted illegal immigrant go free is akin to abetting a fugitive from justice. Keep your fingers crossed that Team Trump prevails in this suit. But remember, too, that Adams is on the right side of it.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Maxwell attorney says he hasn't spoken about pardon with Trump team
An attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex offender and associate of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, said he has not talked to President Trump's team about a potential pardon. 'We're going to take one day at a time. I know that's very cliche, but it's true, because things are happening so quickly,' Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus told reporters on Friday after he and Maxwell met for the second day in a row with Justice Department officials. 'We haven't spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet,' he added. 'And listen, the president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche spoke with Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, in Tallahassee, Fla. The first meeting, which lasted for over five hours, was on Thursday. Oscar Markus, the lawyer, said earlier on Friday that Maxwell completed a 'thorough, comprehensive' interview with Blanche. 'No person and no topic were off-limits. We are very grateful. The truth will come out,' the attorney said in a statement. Blanche has not commented about the Friday meeting with Maxwell. Trump said on Friday morning that he has not thought about pardoning Maxwell, who is currently appealing her case to the Supreme Court. 'It's something I haven't thought about it. I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about,' the president said. 'I certainly can't talk about pardons,' he later added. Blanche's second day of interviews with Maxwell comes as the administration has faced immense pressure from Trump's base and political opponents to release more documents regarding Epstein's case. The president suggested that the media turn its sights on others, including former President Clinton, who have been linked to Epstein as well as former President Obama, who has made the news in recent days after the administration's release of intelligence relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election. 'And people should really focus on how well the country's doing, or they should focus on the fact that Barack Hussein Obama led a coup, or they should focus on the fact that [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers from Harvard, that [former President] Bill Clinton, who you know very well, and lots of other friends, really close friends of Jeffrey [Epstein] should be spoken about,' Trump said. 'They don't talk about them, they talk about me,' he added. 'I have nothing to do with the guy.' Trump also insisted that he had never gone to Epstein's private island. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 in jail while awaiting trail, the medical examiner at the time found. The cause of his death was reaffirmed in a joing FBI and DOJ memo from earlier this month, which also added that the disgraced financier did not keep a so-called 'client list.'
