Republican-backed Congressional bills seek to redefine what constitutes “indecent.”
This is part of a greater push to ban porn and criminalize the spread of sexually explicit content, including media, webcam chats, full or partial nude depictions of explicit phone conversations.
It may pave the way for the ultimate prosecution of sexual partners who send nude selfies with one another.
Under current federal law, the production or dissemination of “indecent” material is not protected by the First Amendment.
However, classifying material as “indecent” and allowing law enforcement to prosecute people for spreading and sharing it makes it difficult to prove and be open to broad interpretation.
To determine what constitutes “indecency,” the court relies on three extension tests known as the “mirror test,” which was established by the Supreme Court in a 1973 case (Miller vs California).
Under that standard, if obscene appeals to “hopeful interests,” portrayed or described sexual conduct in a “patentably offensive” way and taken as a whole, it must lack “serious literature, art, political, or scientific values.”
If the material does not fill even one of the three prongs, it is considered non-indecent.
For example, a film containing nudes can be argued that despite the inclusion of this entire film, it has artistic merit.
Conservatives frequently argue that the criteria for determining “indecency” are subjective, overly vague, and outdated internet ahead of time. They argue that there should be a single national standardized definition of “obscene.”
However, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected such a concept. Miller vs Californianote that the opinion that “applies with the average person’s opinion, modern adult community standards” differs from state to state regarding what constitutes obscene.
The Interstate Fast Definition Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UTAH) and U.S. Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), imposes national standards.
In fact, the bill adopts the view that, like Elizabeth Nolan Brown, virtually depicts human sexuality is indecent. reasona magazine that is leaning towards libertarians reports.
The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to redefine “indecency” and “taken as a whole, appealing to a proud interest in nude, gender, or excretion, depicting, expressing or expressing sexual conduct that is portrayed, symbolic or simulated.
This means that image files, movies, videotapes, or other visual depictions of sexual horns or erotic content are considered “indecent” and popularizes the material being punished by fines of up to $50,000 for each violation and being punished in prison for up to six months.
Both Lee, who introduced the bill twice before when the Senate was under democratic control, argues that redefines “indecency” is important to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography.
Lee previously requested that porn be banned from social media platform X and introduced a law that required porn websites to use age verification technology.
He also introduced bills requiring app stores and app developers to verify the age of users and require parents to app downloads by minors.
The bill would remove the “intention” requirement that prohibit the transmission of any form of indecent material and currently prohibit the transmission of indecent material for the purpose of abusing, intimidating or harassing someone.
By amending any part of the law, telecommunications deemed “indecent” would be criminalized even if the intent behind the transmission of material was malicious.
Levy believes that the section is designed to target webcams and telephone sex operators, but by removing the “intention” requirement, the government can prosecute individuals engaged in virtual webcams or “telephone sex” with consent partners.
It is unclear whether Lee’s bill will gain traction in the Senate, but with Republicans setting the agenda, it is more unclear than when Democrats controlled the Senate.
If right-wing activists mobilize, the measure is highly likely to be approved by Congress and signed in a short period of time by President Trump.
As pointed out reasonthe law could even be used in a day to prosecute people who send nude images or selfies to consenting partners.
The Federal Communications Commission has determined that text messages are “information services” rather than communications, but it does not exceed the scope of the possibility that the Commission could change its definition in the future.
If that happens, those who text the nude images to others may be charged with consent and submitting indecent material.
Robert Korn Leber, the chief advisor to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, reason He doesn’t think he will survive the legal challenge that claims the law is unconstitutional.
However, he said the collection of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation would result in censorship and potential loss of information or content deemed “indecent.”
Conservatives, for example, routinely argue that books, films, and even scientific information about LGBTQ people and the community are equivalent to pornography and deserves banning.
Under such a wide range of interpretations and worldviews, books about gay penguin parents raising chicks together or preventing the transmission of HIV (without explicit photos or gender explanations) can both be accused of “appealing to good prudish interests.”
Interstate Fastness Definition Act achieves one of these Stated goals “Project 2025,” a blueprint created by far-right think tanks, for the Heritage Foundation of the initiative that the Republican president should tackle: delegitimizes all pornographic content and imprisons those who produce and distribute it.
However, Project 2025 appears to have expressed support for a broader interpretation of what is considered a “pornographic”.
This initiative not only calls for the elimination of all legal protections for LGBTQ people, but also blends the concept of gender identity with exposure to pornography, but also hints at the ongoing cultural war battle over books that include books that contain LGBTQ content.
Coupled with the right-wing efforts to poum schools and public libraries that include “sexual content,” including works that acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ identities, it is immeasurable that Lee and Miller’s bills can provide “stepping stones” to future laws declaring LGBTQ-related material as “obscure.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
