Latest news with #CommunicationsActof1934
USA Today
19-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Republicans appeal to morality with porn ban bill. Will it turn off their base?
Republicans appeal to morality with porn ban bill. Will it turn off their base? | Opinion For a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns – but not with Google' Show Caption Hide Caption Can legislation combat the surge of nonconsensual deepfake porn? Deepfake porn is now targeting middle school and high schoolers. Lawmakers are trying to fight it. Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar? Well, never fear, Utah Senator Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab. Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography. The bill 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. Content could be deemed 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." That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it. Aiming at base instincts could target prime GOP base Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Donald Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men. Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, "manosphere" is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year. Opinion: The left trashes men endlessly. It's no wonder they chose Trump. We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes – many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets. The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, "anti-woke" crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid – and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite. It tells them: You, too, are the problem. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become – whether we like it or not – a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash. And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns – it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the "anti-woke" movement. Opinion: This liberal influencer calls Democrats 'smug, disinterested.' He's right. Moral posturing means we don't have to address real issues Instead of focusing on real issues – economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education – this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing. There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics. And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: "We trust you with guns – but not with Google." The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age. And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry – it's part of their own voter base. Kristin Brey a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where this column originally appeared.
Indianapolis Star
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Pornhub is offline in Indiana. Republicans want to ban porn everywhere.
Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar? Well, never fear, Utah Sen. Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab. Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography. Opinion: As Pornhub exits Indiana, online porn is still easy to find The bill 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. Content could be deemed 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.' That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it. Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men. Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, 'manosphere' is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year. We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes — many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets. The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, 'anti-woke' crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid — and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite. It tells them: You, too, are the problem. It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become — whether we like it or not — a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash. And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns — it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the 'anti-woke' movement. Instead of focusing on real issues — economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education — this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing. There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics. Opinion: Trump secured the border. Legal battles distract from his success. And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns— but not with Google.' The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age. And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry — it's part of their own voter base.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill to ban porn is moral pandering that swipes at bros who went right
Are you worried about paying your bills? Affording health care? Or watching democracy crumble like a Nature Valley granola bar? Well, never fear, Utah Senator Mike Lee is here to protect you from the real threat: your incognito tab. Yes, Lee and fellow Republican Rep. Mary Miller's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would criminalize all pornography. The bill 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. Content could be deemed 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.' That's a definition so wide it could sweep up a whole lot of HBO shows with it. Beyond that glaringly wide net of a definition, this seems like just another virtue signaling culture war proposal that will never actually make it to President Trump's desk. But, then again, who knows. One of Project 2025's many goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. So if this legislation were to actually gain momentum, we could witness the GOP alienate one of its newly secured voting blocs: chronically online young men. Since the November 2024 election, the conversation about young men's shift to the right has been written about ad nauseum. So much so, 'manosphere' is likely in the running for Webster's 2025 Word of the Year. We know that young men helped elect Trump. They're enmeshed in online political discourse. And yes — many of them are consumers of exactly the content this bill targets. The modern right wing movement has spent years cultivating this audience: through podcasts, YouTube influencers, 'anti-woke' crusades and appeals to grievance politics. These young men have been told, repeatedly, that their frustrations with feminism, social progress and a rapidly changing culture are valid — and that the right will fight for them. But this bill does the opposite. It tells them: You, too, are the problem. It's hard to overstate how deeply ingrained online adult content is in the digital ecosystem these voters inhabit. Platforms like OnlyFans, PornHub and other streaming sites have become — whether we like it or not — a major outlet for young men who feel disconnected from traditional relationships and left behind economically. Taking that away, without offering anything in its place, is a recipe for alienation and backlash. And it's not just about habits or personal freedom. This is a policy so extreme that it risks turning a culture war into a self-inflicted political wound. Banning all porn doesn't just raise enormous First Amendment concerns — it invites backlash from libertarians, moderates, and yes, the online foot soldiers of the 'anti-woke' movement. Instead of focusing on real issues — economic insecurity, mental health, loneliness, sex education — this proposal feels like a distraction. A symbolic gesture that ignores root causes in favor of moral posturing. There are serious debates to be had about online content, consent, exploitation and mental health. But making millions of Americans potential criminals for what they watch in the privacy of their homes isn't policy. It's performative politics. Opinion: We asked readers about arrest of Milwaukee Judge Dugan. Here's what you said. And for a party that, until recently, struggled to connect with younger voters, it's a risky move to send the message: 'We trust you with guns— but not with Google.' The question isn't whether porn is good or bad. The question is whether the government should be the arbiter of morality and obscenity in the digital age. And if the GOP insists on fighting that battle, they may find their greatest casualty isn't just the adult entertainment industry — it's part of their own voter base. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: GOP porn bill says we trust you with guns but not Google | Opinion
Time of India
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pornhub and other ‘adult content' websites facing ban in the US? New bill says 'Yes'
Pornhub and other 'adult content' websites facing ban in the US? New bill says 'Yes' A newly proposed bill in the United States Congress could bring sweeping changes to the legal landscape of online pornography . The legislation, known as the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), was introduced by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and co-sponsored by Representative Mary Miller of Illinois. According to The Economic Times report, if enacted, the bill would redefine what constitutes "obscene" content under federal law , potentially making a wide range of adult material illegal across the country. This significant shift could impact content creators, platforms, and consumers, raising critical questions about free speech, digital privacy, and the future of online expression. Given the potential for far-reaching effects, this proposal has sparked intense debate among lawmakers, legal experts, and civil rights advocates. What is the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act is a legislative effort to revise the federal definition of obscenity, which has remained largely unchanged for decades. Currently, the definition of obscene material is based on the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, which established a three-part standard, commonly known as the "Miller Test." For content to be considered legally obscene under this test, it must: by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo Appeal to prurient (sexual) interests, Depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way according to contemporary community standards, Lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The IODA seeks to eliminate much of this nuance by creating a stricter, more straightforward definition, as reported by The Economic Times . It proposes that any material that appeals to prurient interests in nudity, sex, or excretion, and depicts or describes sexual acts with the intent to arouse, could be classified as obscene. Notably, the bill removes the requirement to prove the "intent" of distribution, a significant departure from the existing Communications Act of 1934. This change would make it easier for federal authorities to prosecute cases involving sexually explicit content, even if the creators did not specifically intend to distribute such material as obscene. Key provisions of the IODA The IODA introduces several critical changes to existing obscenity laws, including: Broader definition of obscenity: Removes the requirement for community standards and intent, focusing solely on the content itself. Stricter federal oversight: Extends federal jurisdiction over obscene material distributed across state lines or internationally, regardless of local laws. Removal of artistic or scientific exemptions: Omits the current requirement to assess the artistic, scientific, political, or literary value of the content. Focus on online distribution: Specifically targets digital platforms and websites that host or distribute adult content, reflecting the realities of the internet age. Senator Mike Lee's rationale for the bill In a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), Senator Mike Lee argued that the current legal definitions of obscenity are too vague and difficult to enforce, allowing the adult entertainment industry to operate largely unchecked. He stated, "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." Lee emphasized that the IODA is intended to close these loopholes and provide a more robust legal framework to combat what he views as the harmful effects of pornography. This is not Lee's first attempt to tighten federal obscenity laws. He introduced similar bills in both 2022 and 2023, although those efforts failed to gain sufficient support. However, this latest version, with its more streamlined approach, may have a better chance of advancing through Congress. Impact on online pornography and free speech If passed, the IODA could have profound implications for the adult entertainment industry and digital free speech in the United States. Critics argue that the bill's broad definition of obscenity could criminalize a wide range of consensual adult content, including materials that may lack "serious artistic or scientific value" but are still widely accepted in modern culture. This raises concerns about potential overreach and censorship, particularly given the bill's removal of the "community standards" clause, which has historically served as a buffer against overly restrictive interpretations of obscenity. Additionally, the bill's focus on digital distribution could pose significant challenges for online platforms. Many adult websites are hosted or accessed across multiple states or even international borders, potentially exposing them to federal prosecution if the bill becomes law. What makes the IODA different from past obscenity laws The key distinction between the IODA and previous obscenity laws is its simplified, more aggressive approach to defining and prosecuting obscene material. Unlike the Miller Test, which requires a nuanced assessment of local community standards and artistic value, the IODA focuses solely on the nature of the content itself. This shift reflects a broader trend among conservative lawmakers to crack down on what they see as harmful digital content, regardless of artistic intent or regional cultural differences. Moreover, the IODA directly targets the modern realities of digital communication, which the original 1973 ruling could not have anticipated. By removing the "intent" clause, the bill lowers the bar for prosecution, potentially making it easier for federal authorities to bring cases against content creators, platforms, and even individual users. Next steps for the bill in Congress The IODA is currently under consideration in Congress, where it will likely face a challenging path to passage. While it may attract support among conservative lawmakers, it is expected to encounter significant opposition from free speech advocates, digital rights organizations, and some business groups. The bill's success will depend largely on whether it can garner bipartisan support, a critical factor in the current polarized political environment. For now, the bill is gaining attention not only for its potential legal impact but also for the broader cultural debate it has sparked over the role of adult content in American society. Also read | Airtel recharge plans | Jio recharge plans | BSNL recharge plans AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Yahoo
Opinion: Keep firing at the pornography industry
In a blistering column last week, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof exposed the cavalier attitude employees at porn companies have about videos featuring children. His reporting centered on the vilest form of evil afflicting this visual cancer on society, concluding that various 'tube' sites on the internet carry hundreds of thousands of videos with children as the main subjects. He interviewed a victim who, at age 15, had been unwittingly drugged at a stranger's house and sexually abused while being filmed. The resulting trauma she endured was staggering, as were her relentless efforts to have the images removed. 'I am sharing my story because I want there to be laws and safeguards in place to prevent this from happening to anyone else,' she told Kristof. Indeed, modern society owes her that for allowing such things to happen. Images of child pornography are illegal under federal law. And so it's encouraging to see Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, sponsoring the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, which would establish a uniform definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 that would be enforced across state lines. The bill is meant to make it easier to protect children from being exposed to pornography, which is another side to the problem about which Kristof wrote. Any movement against this relentless monster should be seen as good. Confusion and unclear definitions 'have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,' Lee said in a statement. 'Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.' Whether the focus is on children who become exposed to pornography or those who become subjects of it, the concern is similar. Regularly viewing such things leads to a host of problems, and it is becoming endemic. An essay published on noted that the porn industry today generates more income each year than the revenues of the NFL, NBA and MLB combined. 'Every second, $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography,' it said. Studies have shown how pornography desensitizes viewers, leading to addictive behavior as they consume more in order to achieve the desired stimulus. A behavioral study published by the National Institutes of Health concluded, 'In all facets of the users' lives, negative consequences (from pornography) were seen. Due to the explosion of new technologies, online pornography has risen to an alarming level, which has very injurious effects on societies and individuals. Therefore, it is high time to get rid of this addiction to protect our lives from its harmful effects.' Two years ago, the Deseret News reported on a survey by Common Sense Media that found more than half of children had watched pornography online by age 13. Getting rid of it entirely runs headlong into First Amendment issues, but Congress can act to better protect children. Nine years ago, Utah lawmakers passed a resolution declaring pornography a public health hazard and calling for research, public education, prevention and policy changes. But Washington can do much more than any state to attack the problem. As the Deseret News reported, Lee's bill would amend the definition of obscenity to be more explicit and direct. It also would delete language in the current law that prohibits such content only if there is proof of 'abusing, threatening, or harassing a person.' Law enforcement would have more power to keep obscene content from being transmitted across state lines — a challenge in the internet age but an absolute necessity for effectiveness. Earlier this year, Lee also introduced the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act. That would require strengthened age verification technology on pornography websites. Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, is a co-sponsor. Unfortunately, pornography has gained a foothold of acceptance in American culture. About 60% of men and 40% of women have viewed it, according to In addition, the website reports that 51% do not believe watching pornography is wrong. However, 84% of American adults say child pornography is morally wrong and should be illegal. Logically, it makes little sense to believe that celebrating an 18th birthday should automatically make such a thing proper entertainment, but that is a bigger battle. Meanwhile, we hope bills such as these can begin to put a dent in a growing industry that does tremendous harm to the most vulnerable among us.
