S.1671 - Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (119th Congress)
Summary
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act aims to define "obscenity" within the context of the Communications Act of 1934. It seeks to establish a clear legal standard for obscenity related to visual depictions, including images, films, and videos, transmitted across state lines. The bill amends Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 to include a specific definition of obscenity, referencing prurient interest, sexual acts, and lack of serious value.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would provide a uniform definition of obscenity for the purposes of federal communications law. This could lead to stricter enforcement against the distribution of materials deemed obscene under the new definition. It may also impact online content regulation and potentially affect freedom of speech.
Potential Benefits
- Provides a clearer legal definition of obscenity, potentially reducing ambiguity in enforcement.
- Could lead to a reduction in the availability of materials deemed obscene, particularly for children.
- May strengthen the ability of law enforcement to prosecute obscenity-related offenses across state lines.
- Could protect community standards and values related to decency.
- May reduce the exploitation of individuals in the production of obscene materials.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- The definition of obscenity could be interpreted too broadly, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights.
- Could lead to censorship and the suppression of artistic expression.
- May disproportionately affect marginalized communities and content creators.
- Enforcement could be costly and difficult, particularly in the digital age.
- The definition relies on subjective criteria, such as "prurient interest" and "serious value," which can be challenging to apply consistently.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is questionable, particularly concerning the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. While the government has some power to regulate obscenity, the definition must be narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on protected expression. The Supreme Court's interpretation of obscenity in cases like Miller v. California (1973) provides a framework, but the bill's specific language could still be challenged as overly broad or vague. The definition of sexual act and sexual contact refers to Title 18, which is a criminal statute, and may be an overreach in the context of communications.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).