Latest news with #FoundationforIndividualRightsandExpression
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New obscenity bill could trigger boldest anti-porn prosecution wave in US history
U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) this week, a bill designed to create a national legal standard for obscenity and ease federal prosecution of pornographic content distributed across state lines. Representative Mary Miller (R-Illinois) is backing the measure in the House. '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 said in a press release. 'Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.' The legislation has triggered a wave of concern among civil liberties groups and First Amendment advocates, who argue that its broad language could criminalize a vast range of consensual adult content. IODA proposes changes to the Communications Act of 1934, removing the existing 'intent' clause that limits federal obscenity enforcement to cases involving harassment or abuse. Instead, it introduces a three-part definition of obscene content that, according to lawmakers, reflects the digital age and eliminates confusion caused by varying state-level definitions. Under the bill, content would be considered obscene if it appeals to prurient interests in nudity, sex, or excretion; depicts or describes sexual acts intended to arouse or gratify; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when viewed as a whole. 'The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act equips law enforcement with the tools they need to target and remove obscene material from the internet,' said Miller. 'I'm proud to lead this effort in the House with Senator Lee to safeguard American families and ensure this dangerous material is kept out of our homes and off our screens.' Free speech watchdogs and legal scholars say the bill stretches the limits of constitutionality. Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Reason magazine, 'It really struck me that there's nothing about that definition that I think would survive constitutional review.' Ricci Joy Levy, president of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, added that the definition is 'so broad' that even mainstream entertainment like Game of Thrones could be deemed obscene. 'The point is to loosen the definition of obscenity so it's more broad and the government is removed of the obligation to prove patent offensiveness,' she told Reason. Lee's proposal closely aligns with the aims of Project 2025, a policy initiative by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The group's Mandate for Leadership seeks to criminalize all pornography and hold technology firms accountable for facilitating its distribution. It characterizes porn as a tool for spreading 'transgender ideology and sexualization of children,' advocating for prison time for content creators and the closure of complicit platforms. Current U.S. obscenity law relies on the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller v. California ruling, which uses a three-prong test that includes 'contemporary community standards' and a 'reasonable person' perspective. Critics of IODA argue that the bill scraps these constitutional guardrails by excluding community input and instead creating a rigid national definition that grants broad enforcement powers to the government. While possession of obscene material is not federally criminalized unless minors are involved, distribution or production can trigger prosecution. Lee and Miller's bill aims to expand the reach of those laws, potentially reshaping online content regulation in the U.S.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Republicans Want To Redefine Obscenity
Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) wants to redefine obscenity in a way that could render all sorts of legal sexual content illegal. His proposal would make the definition of obscenity so broad that it could ban even the most mild pornography, and possibly even more. Lee and Rep. Mary Miller (R–Ill.), who introduced a companion bill in the House, have made no secret of the fact that the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) is intended to get porn off the internet. "Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted," Lee said as he introduced the legislation. But his proposed definition of obscenity is "so broad" that the TV show Game of Thrones could fall under its purview, suggests Ricci Joy Levy, president and CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. The bill makes a mockery of the First Amendment. "It really struck me that there's nothing about that definition that I think would survive constitutional review," says Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Obscenity is one of a few categories of exceptions to First Amendment–protected speech. While federal law doesn't ban the mere possession of obscene materials, unless they involve minors, it does ban possessing or producing obscene material with the intent to sell or distribute it, along with selling, sending, shipping, receiving, importing, or transporting obscene material, or engaging in a business that does. There is no federal law that strictly defines what is considered obscenity. To make a judgement, courts rely on what's become known as the Miller test. Its three prongs were established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1973 case Miller v. California (and clarified further in 1987's Pope v. Illinois). Under the Miller test, something obscene must appeal to "prurient interests," depict or describe sexual acts in a "patently offensive" way, and, when taken as a whole, lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." If it fails to meet any of these prongs, it's not obscene. Moreover, determining whether something lacks value requires applying a "reasonable person" standard, and determining if something appeals to prurient interests and is offensive requires asking "whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards," would think so. This is supposed to ensure that we're not declaring things criminally obscene just because some vocal minority of people might think they are, or because of standards that are no longer in touch with the times. "It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people of Maine or Mississippi accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in Las Vegas, or New York City," wrote Chief Justice Warren E. Burger for the majority in Miller, explicitly rejecting the idea that there should be one national standard for obscenity law. Lee wants to change this. Lee's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would "clarify the legal definition of 'obscenity' for all states," a press release from Lee's office states. It would also do away with a definition of obscenity that relies on what Lee's office's calls "ever-changing and elusive public opinion." Basically, Lee wants to replace the average person's opinion with his own. And his own opinion seems to be that virtually any depiction of human sexuality is obscene. Under Lee's proposal, obscenity would include any picture, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction that satisfies three conditions. Two of these are similar to the prongs of the Miller test, albeit without including a community standards or average person caveats: Obscenity would have to appeal "to the prurient interest" in nudity, sex, or excretion, and it would have to lack literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. But rather than requiring that something depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way in order to be considered obscene, Lee thinks basically all depictions of sexual conduct or erotic nudity could count as obscenity. The other prong of his definition of "obscenity" ropes in anything that "depicts, describes, or represents an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact" or "lewd exhibition of the genitals" in a way meant to "arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desire of a person." "The point is to loosen the definition of obscenity so it's more broad and the government is removed of the obligation to prove patent offensiveness," says Levy. In that way, it would give the government more leeway to target porn producers and distributors with criminal sanctions. This is, indeed, what Lee and Miller are saying. When they unveiled IODA, Miller declared that the law would give law enforcement "the tools they need to target and remove obscene material from the internet" and to "ensure this dangerous material is kept out of our homes and off our screens." This isn't about age-gating online porn or otherwise ensuring that it's not easily accessible to minors. It's about ensuring that no one can to see content that that might "arouse" or "titillate." Aside from defining obscenity, Lee's bill has one other component—and it's a bit of a head-scratcher. It concerns the federal crime of "obscene or harassing" telecommunications. Currently, "obscene" communications transmitted "by means of a telephonic device" must be done with an "intent to abuse, threaten, or harass" in order for them to be considered a crime. Lee's bill would remove the "intent to abuse, threaten, or harass" bit, so any telecommunications considered "obscene" would be criminalized even when no ill intent was present. It's unclear why. Levy thinks the target is probably webcam videos, which are a very popular medium for personalized erotic shows and chat. All sorts of sex work that relies on video calls—whether via a dedicated webcamming platform or some other service—could potentially be banned by removing the requirement that "obscene" calls be harassing or abusive in order to be criminal. The proposed change would possibly allow for targeting phone sex operators and dirty phone calls, too. While Lee's revised definition of obscenity concerns visual depictions, not words, it still seems to allow for obscenity to exist in other contexts. In short, it defines all pornographic images as illegal obscenity, but it does not limit illegal obscenity to pornographic images. That leaves room for phone calls that include sex talk to be labeled obscene even when everyone involved is a consenting adult. It's even possible that this change could be used to go after porn and nude images sent from one telephone to another in various capacities. The Federal Communications Commission has held that text messages are "information services," not telecommunications, but the commission could change that in the future. "There aren't a great number of pure obscenity prosecutions these days," notes Corn-Revere. Prosecutors may still bring obscenity charges in conjunction with charges for things like child abuse or child porn, "but a pure bust for dirty magazines or dirty books or dirty movies is very rare." If IODA passes, that could change. And even if its new definition of obscenity eventually failed constitutional muster in court, it could cause a lot of damage as the cases played out. "So, we take it to court, we go through six years of challenges, and in the mean time, information vanishes," says Levy, who thinks the bill would be used to target speech by and about LGBTQ activity and, especially, about transgender people. While Lee has tried to impose a national definition of obscenity before and failed, Levy thinks that "in this climate, he might have a chance." Since the 2018 passage of FOSTA, a bill that criminalized hosting online content that could facilitate prostitution, we've seen increasing attempts to try and censor online content, she notes. "This is just another attempt to throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." Central planning and vibes: "For a case that could reshape the American tech sector, it's astonishing how little clarity the government has offered about the problem it's trying to solve," writes Robert Winterton, vice president of public affairs at the tech-industry trade group NetChoice, about the federal government's antitrust case against Google: The [Justice Department] hasn't identified actual consumer harm—nor has it proposed remedies that suggest they are focused on improving outcomes for users. Instead, the agency has proposed a grab bag of radical structural changes that seem less about restoring competition and more about punishing Google and asserting control over what it believes the digital marketplace should look like, based on vague notions of "fairness" to competitors—not consumers. MAGA's anti-tech antitrust warrior: Gail Slater, assistant attorney general for antitrust, is keen to take aim at big tech companies, notes Politico, describing a forum Slater convened to discuss strategy: It is a scene that until recently would have been unheard of for a mostly Republican crowd in Washington. Until [President Donald] Trump, Republicans largely embraced a light-touch approach to applying the country's antitrust laws—a tendency seen as part and parcel of the party's generally more business-friendly stances when compared to those of the Democrats….Trump himself showed limited interest in aggressive antitrust against the major tech companies until near the end of his first term, when the [Justice Department] filed a case against Google over the multibillion-dollar company allegedly unfairly competing in the search market just three months before he left office. But that's all shifting now, and Slater's own arc is one window into how it all changed for many other conservatives. Slater is a longtime Republican who throughout her legal and lobbying career has been known both as a by-the-book enforcer and bipartisan bridge-builder, according to interviews with nearly two dozen people who know her. But her long-standing disdain for the abuses of monopoly power has positioned her to be the leader of the surging MAGA antitrust movement's legal agenda, overseeing cases that include a pair of lawsuits against Google and another against Apple. She will also serve as an ally to Ferguson as his [Federal Trade Commission] sues Facebook-parent Meta over its purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp. Anyone hoping against the odds that the second Trump administration would be better on these issues than President Joe Biden's administration is probably out of luck. The best we can hope for is that it will go about as poorly in court as it did for Biden's antitrust warriors… The 9th Circuit reaffirms the government's loss in Microsoft case: "Microsoft's merger with gaming giant Activision Blizzard took a leap forward [last week] after a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a federal judge was correct in rejecting the Federal Trade Commission's attempt to block the deal after a trial in 2023," reports Courthouse News. The three judges unanimously "ruled the federal judge had applied the correct legal standards. The panel also found the [Federal Trade Commission] had not shown it was likely to succeed on its claims that the merger would restrict competition." The post Republicans Want To Redefine Obscenity appeared first on
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Palestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi's release offers hope amid Trump crackdown
Pro-Palestinian students detained by immigration authorities saw their biggest win to date this week with the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, though both his case and the fight at large have a long way to go. While the ruling is not the kind of slam dunk that would make advocates feel safer about the state of free speech on college campuses, it is the first major breakthrough in the courts for international students who have been besieged by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under President Trump. 'While this decision is a positive development, and we certainly hope there are more decisions like it coming down the road, I do think it would be overly ambitious to say that this provides a layer of protection' for students, said Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Mahdawi, a green-card holder and 10-year U.S. resident, was released on bail Wednesday after he was arrested April 14 by plain clothes officers during what was supposed to be a naturalization interview, with video of the incident quickly going viral. The judge in the Columbia University student's case cited First Amendment concerns in his ruling. 'His continued detention would likely have a chilling effect on protected speech, which is squarely against the public interest. And continuing to detain him would not benefit the public in any way, as Mahdawi appears not to be either a flight risk or a danger to the community,' U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford said. 'Finally, Mr. Mahdawi's release will benefit his community, which appears to deeply cherish and value him,' Crawford added. The release was the first among the high-profile cases that have garnered national attention in Trump's crackdown. The administration has accused Mahdawi and others of being 'pro-Hamas' and says the secretary of State has the authority to order their deportation because they pose a threat to the foreign policy of the United States. 'When you advocate for violence, glorify and support terrorists that relish the killing of Americans and harass Jews, that [visa] privilege should be revoked and you should not be in this country. We have the law, facts and commonsense on our side,' Tricia McLaughlin, assistant Homeland Security secretary, said on social platform X after Mahdawi's ruling. 'No judge, not this one or another, is going to stop the Trump Administration from restoring the rule of law to our immigration system,' McLaughlin added. Mahmoud Khalil, another Columbia alumnus and the first pro-Palestinian student activist known to be arrested by ICE, and Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was allegedly targeted over a school newspaper op-ed she co-authored supporting Palestine, are both still fighting for their own release. Both were taken to Louisiana to be detained, leading to fights over which courts have jurisdiction over their cases. Advocates argue the administration taking students thousands of miles away from where they were arrested is intentional to harm them and get the proceedings into a friendlier court. Louisiana's district courts feed into the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. Mahdawi's 'case shows that once you get past all of the government's procedural tricks and hurdles … the government's defense' will not work in court, said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney on the American Civil Liberties Union Speech, Privacy and Technology Project and part of Mahdawi's legal team. 'We expect that when the courts reach the merits in the other cases, they're going to see through [the federal government] as well. And so, we're hopeful that this is the first step in a very important constitutional right,' Hauss added. Fitzpatrick said the brighter light of hope 'that college students and other noncitizens should look for is whether an injunction has been issued, whether a court has issued an order blocking the Trump administration's efforts to deport noncitizens for protected speech.' Multiple academic groups have sued the administration over the policy the federal government is using to justify the arrests of international students and scholars. The Trump administration has not shown any signs of stopping, but advocates argue that even if all the cases were dropped today, the effects on free speech at college campuses will be long lasting. 'Over the last year, there's been a consistent and persistent squashing of speech, and that, unfortunately may continue and there is going to be a lingering fear,' said Kristen Shahverdian, program director of campus free speech at Pen America. 'There are already those repercussions where students and others on campus are reporting that they are afraid and that the risk is high, so they have to be really mindful of what they say, of voicing opinions, certainly not protesting visibly right out in the quad. And so, I think that, unfortunately, these kinds of cases can have a much longer term effect,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Palestinian student Mohsen Mahdawi's release offers hope amid Trump crackdown
Pro-Palestinian students detained by immigration authorities saw their biggest win to date this week with the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, though both his case and the fight at large have a long way to go. While the ruling is not the kind of slam dunk that would make advocates feel safer about the state of free speech on college campuses, it is the first major breakthrough in the courts for international students who have been besieged by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under President Trump. 'While this decision is a positive development, and we certainly hope there are more decisions like it coming down the road, I do think it would be overly ambitious to say that this provides a layer of protection' for students, said Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Mahdawi, a green card holder and 10-year U.S. resident, was released on bail Wednesday after he was arrested April 14 during what was supposed to naturalization interview by plain clothes officers, with video of the incident quickly went viral. The judge in the Columbia University student's case cited First Amendment concerns in his ruling. 'His continued detention would likely have a chilling effect on protected speech, which is squarely against the public interest. And continuing to detain him would not benefit the public in any way, as Mahdawi appears not to be either a flight risk or a danger to the community,' U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford said. 'Finally, Mr. Mahdawi's release will benefit his community, which appears to deeply cherish and value him,' Crawford added. The release was the first among the high-profile cases that have garnered national attention in Trump's crackdown. The administration has accused Mahdawi and others of being 'pro-Hamas' and says the secretary of State has the authority to order their deportation because they pose a threat to the foreign policy of the United States. 'When you advocate for violence, glorify and support terrorists that relish the killing of Americans and harass Jews, that [visa] privilege should be revoked and you should not be in this country. We have the law, facts and commonsense on our side,' Tricia McLaughlin, assistant Homeland Security secretary, said on X after Mahdawi's ruling. 'No judge, not this one or another, is going to stop the Trump Administration from restoring the rule of law to our immigration system,' McLaughlin added. Mahmoud Khalil, also a Columbia alumnus and the first pro-Palestinian student activist known to be arrested by ICE, and Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was allegedly targeted over a school newspaper op-ed she co-authored supporting Palestine, are both still fighting for their own release. Both were taken to Louisiana to be detained, leading to fights over which courts have jurisdiction over their cases. Advocates argue the administration taking students thousands of miles away from where they were arrested is intentional to harm them and get the proceedings into a friendlier court. Louisiana's district courts feed into the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. Mahdawi's 'case shows that once you get past all of the government's procedural tricks and hurdles […] the government's defense' will not work in court, said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney on the Speech Privacy and Technology Project and part of Mahdawi's legal team. 'We expect that when the courts reach the merits in the other cases, they're going to see through [the federal government] as well. And so, we're hopeful that this is the first step in a very important constitutional right,' Hauss added. Fitzpatrick says the brighter light of hope 'that college students and other non-citizens should look for is whether an injunction has been issued, whether a court has issued an order blocking the Trump administration's efforts to deport non-citizens for protected speech.' Multiple academic groups have sued the administration over the policy the federal government is using to justify the arrests of international students and scholars. The Trump administration has not shown any signs of stopping, but advocates argue that even if all the cases were dropped today, the effects on free speech at college campuses will be long lasting. 'Over the last year, there's been a consistent and persistent squashing of speech, and that, unfortunately may continue and there is going to be a lingering fear,' said Kristen Shahverdian, program director of campus free speech at PEN America, 'There are already those repercussions where students and others on campus are reporting that they are afraid and that the risk is high, so they have to be really mindful of what they say, of voicing opinions, certainly not protesting visibly right out in the quad. And so, I think that, unfortunately, these kinds of cases can have a much longer term effect,' she added.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘I won my case': Germantown settles holiday decor lawsuit
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A Germantown woman has won a lawsuit that she filed against the city of Germantown after she was summoned to court last year over her skeleton holiday decor. The city of Germantown voted to repeal its holiday ordinance and agreed to a $24,999 settlement to settle a First Amendment lawsuit, according to attorneys representing the resident. Alexis Luttrell put a skeleton and a skeleton dog in her yard in October and later dressed them up for the holidays. In December, she received a notice that the decor violated the city's code. Germantown resident summoned to court over holiday decor According to ordinance 11-33, holiday and seasonal decorations shall not be installed or placed more than 45 days before the date of the holiday for which said decorations are intended and shall be removed within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 30 days, following the date of the holiday for which said decorations are intended. In February, Luttrell filed a Federal lawsuit against the City of Germantown, claiming her First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when they asked her to take down her Christmas skeleton decorations. The suit claimed Germantown is dictating how residents celebrate holidays, and its Holiday Decorations Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. Luttrell said the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression [FIRE] would represent her in court. In March, the City of Germantown dropped the citation. 'Not only am I no longer at risk of being fined for my skeletons, but the unconstitutional ordinance is now dead and buried. Today is a victory for anyone who has ever been censored by a government official and chose to fight back,' Luttrell said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
