Two Republican lawmakers, Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Mary Miller of Illinois, have introduced a legislative proposal aimed at redefining the legal parameters of obscenity in the United States. Titled the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), the bill seeks to modernize and standardize how obscenity is interpreted and prosecuted under federal law.
The proposed legislation is a direct challenge to the framework established by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. California, which currently guides judicial determinations of obscenity. That decision introduced the “Miller test,” a three-pronged standard used to decide whether content lacks First Amendment protection due to its obscene nature.
A Push to Update a Pre-Internet Standard
According to the bill’s sponsors, the current legal definition of obscenity is outdated and ill-suited to address the realities of digital media and internet communication. Senator Lee’s statement accompanying the bill asserts that the 1973 criteria are “subjective and vague” and have become increasingly difficult to enforce in an era of global content distribution and online platforms.
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act proposes to replace the second prong of the Miller test, which concerns whether content “depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.” In its place, the bill offers updated and more prescriptive language designed to eliminate ambiguity and make prosecution more straightforward.
The bill also proposes to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to include a new federal definition of obscenity. Under the proposed definition, obscene material would include:
Content that appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,
Content that depicts or describes actual or simulated sexual acts with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desires, and
Content that, when considered as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In addition, the bill removes the current legal requirement that prosecutors prove “intent” when charging individuals with the transmission of obscene material under 47 U.S.C. § 223(a), potentially broadening the scope of what could be prosecuted.
Potential Legal and Social Ramifications
Should the act be passed, it could dramatically reshape the legal landscape surrounding the distribution and consumption of pornographic or sexually explicit content in the United States. By enabling federal authorities to prosecute obscenity more broadly, the law could extend beyond traditional adult entertainment to target digital sex work, including activities such as phone sex or live webcam performances.
Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns that the proposed legislation may blur the lines between obscene content and protected forms of expression. Critics worry that individuals sharing explicit material in private contexts — such as consensual sexting — could also be exposed to legal consequences under the new framework.
Supporters of the bill, including Senator Lee and Representative Miller, argue that such measures are necessary to safeguard the public, particularly minors, from what they characterize as the harmful effects of unregulated explicit material. They maintain that obscenity, unlike other forms of expression, is not protected under the First Amendment and therefore can be subject to stricter control.
“This content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted,” Senator Lee stated, emphasizing that the bill would provide law enforcement with clearer tools to combat online obscenity. Representative Miller added that the bill aims to better equip authorities to “target and remove obscene material from the internet.”
Conclusion
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act represents a significant attempt to redefine federal obscenity law for the digital age. Its passage could mark a major turning point in how sexually explicit content is regulated in the United States, reigniting longstanding debates around free speech, censorship, and the limits of governmental authority in private and public digital spaces.
Source: Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Decision in Miller v. California (1973), and official statements from Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mary Miller.
