All Pornography Websites In The US Could Soon Face A Ban Due To This Bill
Quick Reads
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
Senator Mike Lee introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, targeting pornography by redefining obscenity for the internet. The bill aims to protect families and empower law enforcement against harmful content.
Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced a new bill aimed at criminalising pornography, warning against its harmful impact on American society.
Lee, along with Illinois Representative Mary Miller, unveiled the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which seeks to redefine "obscenity" for the internet era. According to the bill, content is considered obscene if it appeals to prurient interests, depicts sexual acts, and lacks literary, artistic, or scientific value. Specifically, the bill targets content that "depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person".
Senator Lee emphasised the need for updated legislation, stating, "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 echoed this sentiment, saying their legislation "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".
The proposed bill aims to stop the production and dissemination of pornographic material and empower prosecutors to act against it. If passed, IODA would make it illegal to transmit obscene content across state lines, making it easier to prosecute offenders.
Miller highlighted the importance of safeguarding American families, stating that she and Lee see it as their mission to "safeguard American families and ensure this dangerous material is kept out of our homes and off our screens".
This move is consistent with the stance of many prominent conservatives who advocate for censorship when it comes to pornography, citing its potentially harmful psychological impact on vulnerable young people. However, the MAGA movement has struggled to disassociate itself from controversies surrounding pornography, including high-profile incidents involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels playing a role in US President Donald Trump's 'hush money' trial, Senator Ted Cruz accidentally 'liking' steamy posts on X, and House Speaker Mike Johnson saying that he and his son monitor each other's devices for exposure to X-rated content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers
SEATTLE — A federal judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from killing a collective bargaining agreement for Transportation Safety Administration workers. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle said in her order that an injunction is needed to preserve the rights and benefits that TSA workers have enjoyed for years while being represented by the American Federation of Government Employees. In their lawsuit, Pechman said, the union has shown that Noem's directive to end the agreement 'constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers.' It also likely violated due process and AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Noem's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious," she added. 'Today's court decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a release. 'The preliminary injunction underscores the unconstitutional nature of DHS's attack on TSA officers' First Amendment rights. We remain committed to ensuring our members' rights and dignity are protected, and we will not back down from defending our members' rights against unlawful union busting.' Messages left for Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis seeking comment were not immediately returned. AFGE had entered into a new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement with agency last May, but Noem issued a memo Feb. 27 rescinding that agreement. One week later, TSA informed the union about Noem's directive, saying the contract was terminated and all pending grievances would be deleted. AFGE filed a lawsuit against Noem, claiming the move was retaliation against the union for pushing back against the Trump administration's attacks on federal workers. AFGE had filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 19 against the Office of Personnel Management to stop the firing of probationary workers. A judge issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 27 stopping the firings — the same day Noem issued her memo. Abigail Carter, representing AFGE during oral arguments before Pechman on May 27, said Noem's move was retaliation and a violation of the union's First Amendment right to protected speech and its Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The administration has made it clear that if you don't disagree with it politically, you and your members can keep your rights, but if you do disagree, you lose them,' Carter said. She also argued that the collective bargaining agreement was necessary because TSA workers are not covered under the federal labor-management code. The agreement protects them from dangerous working conditions and unreasonable hours. Kipnis denied the retaliation claim and said it was simply a difference in management styles. Pechman questioned that contention. Not all unions are banned by the administration, Pechman said, only the ones oppose the administration. 'Isn't this a pattern that you see?' Pechman asked Kipnis. 'Attorneys who take opposition stances get banned. Those who don't, don't have those restrictions. Isn't this the pattern that the White House has set up?" Kipnis said tension between unions and management are common and this conflict doesn't signal a violation of the workers' First Amendment rights, but instead reflects a confrontational relationship. But Pechman wasn't convinced. Previous TSA managers have found unions to be beneficial and renewed their contracts for years, she said. They found they made a happier workforce, and 'they wanted their employees to feel that they were well-treated,' she said. What has changed is this administration's attitude, she said. To that, Kipnis replied: 'Or you could characterize it as a different management style. The former administration apparently saw that as a better way to do business. ... But this administration sees a different way of doing business. And the same statute affords them the same amount of discretion.' Pechman said she understood that the administration has the right to exercise that discretion, 'but to abruptly cancel doesn't seem well reasoned, so I'm having trouble with that." She also noted, "But why the United States gets to back out of contracts that it's made is harder to accept.' In Monday's order, Pechman said TSA workers would suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, noting that if they lose their collective bargaining agreement, they will lose the benefits it provides. 'While the loss of money alone does not show irreparable harm, the total harms here are more than monetary,' Pechman said. 'They include the loss of substantive employment protections, avenues of grievance and arbitration, and the right to have a workforce that can unite to demand benefits that might not be obtainable through individual negotiation.'
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
US demands final trade offers by Wednesday as tariff deadline nears
With just five weeks until a self-imposed deadline and global markets watching closely, the Trump administration is accelerating trade negotiations with multiple countries, urging them to submit their "best offers" by to a draft letter seen by Reuters, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is pressing countries to outline top-line proposals in key areas such as tariff cuts, quota allocations for US industrial and agricultural goods, and removal of non-tariff trade move comes as the administration attempts to wrap up complex negotiations that began on April 9, when President Donald Trump paused his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs for 90 days after a market backlash. That temporary pause ends on July 8. The letter outlines an aggressive timeline, reflecting a growing sense of urgency inside the White House. "Productive negotiations with many key trading partners continue at a rapid pace. It is in all parties' interest to take stock of progress and assess any next steps," a USTR official told administration officials, including White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett, have repeatedly signalled that multiple agreements are "nearing completion," only one limited deal has emerged so far — with Britain. That agreement, however, is widely viewed as a loose framework for ongoing talks, rather than a final draft letter reportedly calls for detailed responses on digital trade, economic security, and country-specific commitments. Once proposals are submitted, the US plans to evaluate them "within days" and provide what the letter refers to as "a possible landing zone," potentially including reciprocal tariff the draft doesn't specify recipient nations, it's understood to target countries currently in active negotiations, including the European Union, Japan, Vietnam, and ambitious -- and often frenetic -- tariff policy represents a major part of his "America First" economic agenda as he seeks to reshape US trade relationships, reduce trade deficits and protect American industries. Republican lawmakers are also banking on tariffs to add to federal revenue and offset the cost of the tax-cut legislation now working its way through twists and turns in Trump's tariff policies have taken investors on a rollercoaster ride. In May, US stocks held their biggest rally of any month since November 2023, but that was after global indexes had cratered under the barrage of Trump's tariff announcements throughout February, March and early inputs from ReutersTune InMust Watch
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Non-Starter: Iran set to reject US nuclear deal over enrichment, sanctions
Iran is expected to reject a fresh US nuclear proposal delivered over the weekend, calling the offer one-sided and lacking any concessions on key issues such as uranium enrichment and sanctions relief, a senior Iranian diplomat told Reuters on Monday."Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer," said the diplomat, who is closely aligned with Iran's nuclear negotiating team. "This proposal is a non-starter that fails to address Tehran's interests."advertisementThe latest US offer was relayed to Tehran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who has been shuttling between the two sides in an effort to mediate a breakthrough. Despite five rounds of indirect discussions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, key sticking points remain unresolved. One of the main obstacles is Washington's continued demand that Iran fully halt uranium enrichment and ship out its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Tehran has consistently rebuffed these terms.'In this proposal, the US stance on enrichment on Iranian soil remains unchanged, and there is no clear explanation regarding the lifting of sanctions,' the diplomat said, adding that the Iranian side views the American position as 'completely one-sided.'Iran maintains that its nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes and denies seeking nuclear weapons. It has demanded the immediate removal of US sanctions that have throttled its oil-dependent economy. However, Washington has insisted that any sanctions relief must occur in phases, conditional on Tehran's Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb. Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it," White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. "Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media."But Iranian officials say they are unconvinced. According to the diplomat, the proposal 'attempts to impose a bad deal on Iran through excessive demands.'The talks come amid renewed tensions since Trump's return to the White House in January. His administration has resumed the 'maximum pressure' campaign, blacklisting dozens of Iranian institutions and threatening military action should diplomacy withdrew from the original 2015 nuclear accord during his first term, reimposing sanctions that Tehran responded to by ramping up its uranium enrichment well beyond the deal's said Iran would issue a formal response to the US proposal soon, but the mood in Tehran suggests rejection is all but Iranian nuclear negotiations committee, overseen by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has reportedly concluded that the current US offer "could not serve Tehran's interests."Must Watch
