Latest news with #MillerTest
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
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Visiting Pornhub could soon be illegal in the U.S.: Senators introduce new bill that may ban pornography nationwide
Pornhub could soon be illegal in the U.S.: New Bill Could Ban Pornography Across the US: What You Need to Know About the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act- A new bill introduced in Congress could change the way pornography is treated under U.S. law — especially online. Called the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), this legislation was introduced by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and is co-sponsored by Representative Mary Miller of Illinois. If passed, it could bring sweeping changes to how online sexual content is defined, regulated, and even criminalized at the federal level. What does the new anti-pornography bill propose? At its core, the IODA bill aims to redefine what is legally considered 'obscene' in the United States. The legislation seeks to replace the existing definition based on the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California — commonly known as the Miller Test. Under current law, for content to be labeled as obscene, it must meet three criteria: Appeal to prurient (sexual) interests, Offend contemporary community standards, Lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The new bill eliminates some of that complexity. Instead, it proposes that any content appealing to prurient interests in nudity, sex, or excretion, and that depicts or describes sexual acts with the intent to arouse, could be considered obscene. Notably, the bill removes the 'intent' clause from the Communications Act of 1934, meaning that content creators and platforms could be prosecuted even without intent to distribute obscene material. Live Events Why does Senator Mike Lee believe this bill is necessary? In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Senator Mike Lee 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.' He added that the IODA is a first step toward creating a stronger legal definition of obscenity and that it will help stop those profiting from what he calls the degradation of others. This is Lee's third attempt at passing similar legislation. He introduced related bills in both 2022 and 2023, but those efforts did not pass. Could this bill lead to a national porn ban? If passed, the bill could dramatically broaden what qualifies as criminal sexual content under federal law. That means a wide range of adult content currently legal and protected under free speech could become prosecutable if it's shared across state lines or from international sources. This would mark a major shift in how pornography and sexual expression online are handled in the U.S., particularly as most adult websites are hosted or accessed across multiple states or even countries. Critics argue that the bill could open the door to censorship of consensual adult content, especially materials that may lack 'serious artistic or scientific value' but are still widely accepted in today's culture. What makes this law different from past obscenity laws? The key difference lies in the stricter and more simplified definition of obscenity. The original Miller Test is seen by many legal experts as outdated, especially in today's digital landscape where content can be shared instantly across state and national borders. By eliminating the need to prove community standards or intent, the IODA could make it much easier for federal authorities to pursue online obscenity cases — something that's been notoriously difficult under the current legal framework. The proposed bill also targets online distribution more directly, something not addressed in the 1973 ruling, which was written decades before the internet existed. What happens next in Congress? The IODA bill is now under congressional consideration, but its path forward is uncertain. While it may attract support among conservative lawmakers, it is likely to face resistance from those who view it as a threat to free speech and digital privacy. There is no word yet on bipartisan support, which will be crucial for the bill to advance. Newsweek has reached out to the bill's proponents for more details, but as of now, there's no official response. For now, the bill is gaining attention not only for its potential legal impact but also for the broader culture war debate over the role of pornography in society, especially online. FAQs: Q1: What is the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act trying to change? It aims to redefine obscenity laws and expand the federal ban on online pornography. Q2: Could the new porn law criminalize consensual adult content online? Yes, the bill could classify even legal adult content as obscene under new standards.
Newsweek
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
New Bill Could Ban Pornography Across US
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new bill introduced by Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, would create a federal ban on pornography by redefining what qualifies as "obscene" under law. The legislation, called the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), seeks to modernize the standard for prosecuting explicit content online, replacing a decades-old test established by the Supreme Court. Newsweek has contacted the proponents of the bill for more information on the legislation via email. Why It Matters If passed, IODA could dramatically change how sexual content is treated under federal law, especially in online spaces. The bill proposes stripping the "intent" requirement from the current Communications Act of 1934, meaning individuals could face prosecution for sharing or hosting content deemed to be sexually explicit and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." What To Know The bill, introduced on Thursday, is co-sponsored by Illinois Representative Mary Miller, another Republican, and represents the third attempt by Lee to pass such legislation since 2022. The legislation would revise the obscenity standard that authorities have used since the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller vs. California decision, which critics say is outdated and difficult to enforce, especially in the digital age. The Miller Test, named after the 1973 decision, currently includes three criteria: whether the average person would find the work appeals to prurient interest, whether it depicts sexual conduct in an offensive way, and whether it lacks value. The age-restriction warning screen of the website PornHub is displayed on two digital screens. The age-restriction warning screen of the website PornHub is displayed on two digital screens. Getty Images In place of that test, the new bill's definition of obscenity would now include any content that "appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion," and "depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse." If passed, the bill would pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online pornography. It would broaden what kinds of explicit content may be considered a federal crime, potentially criminalizing large amounts of adult content, including consensual expressions of sexuality. What People Are Saying In a statement on X, formerly Twitter, Utah Senator Mike Lee said: "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. "Today I introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act with Representative Mary Miller, establishing a comprehensive definition of obscene materials under federal law. "This is a first and necessary step to stopping the people and companies that profit from degrading their fellow human beings and ruining countless lives." What Happens Next Congress will consider the legislation this month, though it is not clear if it will receive bipartisan support.
