The Republican war on free speech continues with the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) – a porn ban law.
If there is one thing Republican’s have a massive hate boner for, it’s actual free speech in America. They work tirelessly around to the clock finding ways of dismantling it piece by piece. This so that all speech they personally disagree with is eliminated, leaving only speech they personally agree with. One of those efforts was something we highlighted recently which is, of course, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Of course, that is far from the only bill Republican’s are using to crack down on free speech on the internet.
Another way that Republican’s are trying to crack down on free speech is through another bill known as the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (or IODA). In short, the law would redefine general “pornography” (and that is a very loose definition) as “obscene” and would criminalize even possession of it. From Slate:
It’s called the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, or IODA, and if ratified, it would make the possession of all media related to the “prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” a criminal act. Legally speaking, the bill aims to recategorize all pornography—in the broadest possible sense of the term—as “obscene material.” This is key, because there’s a narrow and hugely subjective carve-out in the Constitution that prevents the First Amendment from protecting anything considered “obscene.” That exception has been brandished to curtail various forms of sexual expression and enterprise for years. (In 1998, the Alabama state government used the provision to ban the sale of sex toys, of all things.) However, this bill is so clumsy and flagrantly unenforceable that in its original text, it seems like it would abolish the possession of everything from cheeky pinups to back issues of Hustler.
So, just how wide of a definition are we talking about? Even TV shows could fall within the definitions. From Reason:
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.
Unsurprisingly, it also goes after producers by making the production of said material a criminal act:
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.”
Not only this, but it also goes so far as to target phone sex lines of all things. From TechDirt:
The other worrying aspect of Lee’s bill [PDF] is a paragraph that, at first, seems to have no bearing on the rest of the proposed law.
(b) OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.—Section 223(a)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(A)) is amended, in the undesignated matter following clause (ii), 19 by striking ‘‘, with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass 20 another person’’.
Why is this tacked on to the end of an anti-porn bill? And why is it there solely to sever intent from a criminal act, which is the sort of thing that leads directly to abuse of these laws? Obviously, there’s a reason Mike Lee has added this clause to his bill, but it’s not exactly clear why he’s so interested in stripping criminal intent from a clause about “obscene or harassing telephone calls.”
But there’s a good chance it has something to do with preventing anyone — including adults — from accessing content Mike Lee would clearly like to ban. Here’s Nolan Brown, suggesting one possible reason for this addition to the bill:
All sorts of sex work that relies on video calls—whether via a dedicated web-camming 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.
That’s what happens when you strip intent from criminal laws. It means you can turn victimless, voluntary interactions into criminal acts. Harassment cases generally need a victim to instigate criminal proceedings. With this clause being rewritten, all the government needs to demonstrate is that an “obscene” communication took place, even if there was no victim and no one acting with criminal intent.
So, basically, even suggestive phone calls between two consenting adults isn’t safe under this legislation. It’s absurd and an obvious first amendment violation. What’s more, good luck fully enforcing this. The internet is global and there are things called proxies, VPNs, and Tor out there today. Still, this is just further confirmation of the Republican’s hatred towards free speech. Whether or not this even have a snowballs chance in hell of passing is besides the point. It’s just one more piece of evidence that says that the Republican party believes in big government and using it to control every inch of your life through authoritarian measures – civil rights be damned.
