S.951 - Stop Comstock Act (119th Congress)
Summary
The Stop Comstock Act (S.951) aims to revise sections of Title 18 of the United States Code and the Tariff Act of 1930, specifically targeting provisions related to obscene materials. The bill seeks to remove terms like "indecent" and revise language concerning abortion-related materials from these sections. It also updates references to other sections of the US Code to reflect current legal terminology.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the Stop Comstock Act would narrow the scope of federal laws concerning the distribution and importation of obscene materials. This could lead to changes in how these laws are interpreted and enforced, potentially affecting the availability and regulation of certain types of content. The removal of specific references to abortion-related materials suggests an intent to prevent the application of these laws to such materials.
Potential Benefits
- Clarifies the definition of "obscene materials" under federal law.
- Prevents potential misuse of outdated laws to restrict access to reproductive healthcare information or services.
- Updates legal references to ensure consistency with current US Code.
- Reduces ambiguity in existing statutes, potentially leading to more consistent enforcement.
- Could foster greater freedom of expression by limiting the scope of restrictions on certain materials.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- May weaken existing protections against the distribution of harmful or exploitative materials.
- Could lead to increased availability of obscene content, particularly online.
- Raises concerns about the potential impact on children and vulnerable populations.
- May face opposition from groups concerned about the erosion of traditional moral standards.
- Could create legal challenges related to the definition and regulation of obscenity.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the US Constitution is complex. While it could be argued that the revisions promote freedom of speech under the First Amendment by limiting restrictions on expression, it also raises questions about the government's power to regulate obscenity. The Supreme Court has historically held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of obscenity remains a subject of ongoing debate. The bill does not appear to directly infringe on any other constitutional rights or principles.
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).