In May 2025, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), a legislative proposal aiming to redefine and standardize the federal definition of “obscenity” across all states. Co-sponsored in the House by Representative Mary Miller (R-IL), the bill seeks to amend the Communications Act of 1934, providing law enforcement with clearer guidelines to prosecute the distribution of obscene material, particularly in the digital realm.
Redefining Obscenity for the Digital Age
The IODA proposes a three-pronged definition of obscene content: material that appeals to prurient interests in nudity, sex, or excretion; depicts or describes sexual acts intended to arouse or gratify; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when considered as a whole. This definition aims to replace the current reliance on the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, which established a three-part test for obscenity based on community standards.
Senator Lee argues that the existing legal framework is outdated and insufficient for addressing the proliferation of explicit content online. “Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” Lee stated. The bill also removes the requirement to prove that the distribution of obscene material was intended to abuse, threaten, or harass, thereby broadening the scope for prosecution.
Alignment with Project 2025
The IODA aligns with the objectives of Project 2025, a policy initiative by the conservative Heritage Foundation aimed at reshaping federal governance along right-wing lines. Project 2025 advocates for the criminalization of pornography and increased regulation of online content, reflecting a broader agenda to enforce conservative moral standards through federal legislation.
Support and Opposition
Supporters of the IODA, including conservative advocacy groups, argue that the bill is a necessary step to protect societal values and shield minors from harmful content. They contend that a clear, uniform definition of obscenity will empower law enforcement to more effectively combat the spread of explicit material online.
However, the bill has faced significant criticism from civil liberties organizations, free speech advocates, and members of the adult entertainment industry. Critics argue that the IODA’s broad definition of obscenity could encompass a wide range of content, including materials with artistic or educational value, thereby infringing upon First Amendment rights. They also express concern that the bill could disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other marginalized groups by targeting content related to their experiences and identities.
Potential Implications
If enacted, the IODA could lead to increased federal prosecution of individuals and entities involved in the production and distribution of content deemed obscene under the new definition. This could have far-reaching implications for online platforms, content creators, and consumers, potentially resulting in the removal of a significant amount of material from the internet. Additionally, the bill could set a precedent for further government regulation of online content, raising concerns about censorship and the erosion of digital freedoms.
Legislative Outlook
As of now, the IODA has been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives but has not yet been brought to a vote. Given the contentious nature of the bill and the strong opposition from various advocacy groups, its passage remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the introduction of the IODA has reignited national debates over obscenity, free speech, and the role of government in regulating online content.
