Utah Senator Mike Lee's bill that would ban all pornography federally is advancing within the Senate.The AdvocateBy Ryan AdamczeskiAugust 12 2025A Republican bill that would ban all pornography federally is advancing within the Senate.Utah Senator Mike Lee's Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for review. If approved, it will go to the U.S. Senate for voting.The law would alter the Miller Test, which was established in the 1973 Miller v. California Supreme Court decision that determined "obscene" speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The test defines obscenity as material that "appeal[s] to prurient interests as judged by the average person; depict[s] sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner; and lack[s] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."The IODA would remove the “community standards” benchmark for determining obscenity, and would remove the provision clarifying that sexual conduct must be depicted in a “patently offensive” manner to be considered obscene — labeling all phonographic content as obscenity and rendering it illegal nationally.
The bill instead defines obscenity as material that “taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; depicts, describes, or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person; and taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
The Utah Republican introduced the Senate version of the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide.MSNBCBy Jacob MchangamaMay 13, 2025A new bill in Congress threatens to dictate what Americans can read, watch and say online. On May 8, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., introduced the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide.While concerns about pornography, including moral and religious ones, are part of any healthy public debate, this bill does something far more dangerous: It empowers the federal government to police speech based on subjective values. When lawmakers try to enforce the beliefs of some Americans at the expense of others’ rights, they cross a constitutional line — and put the First Amendment at risk.[...]The IODA seeks to sidestep the Supreme Court’s long-standing three-part test for obscenity, established in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The material must appeal to a prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.Lee’s bill would scrap that standard and replace it with a broader, far more subjective definition. It would label content obscene if it simply focuses on nudity, sex or excretion in a way that is intended to arouse and if it lacks “serious value.”
LGBTQ+ identities are included within "obscene materials" in some states. Under Kansas criminal law, obscene material deemed "harmful to minors" that requires identification to view includes nudity and "sexual content," which is defined in part as "acts of masturbation, homosexuality, or sexual intercourse."
Under current US law, a charge of obscenity can only be laid if a “reasonable person” would find it “patently offensive”.The Christian conservative Heritage Foundation wants to redefine both.“Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalisation of transgender-ism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries,” it proclaimed during the 2024 US election campaign.The Washington DC think-tank authored Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership – The Conservative Promise. This 920-page document forms the basis of many of Trump’s policies, ranging from tariffs, slashing government spending, ending anti-discrimination efforts and renewing bans against the LGBTQ+ community.
ChatGPT said:
Great question—and the answer reveals a clear pattern. Despite different cultures, religions, or political systems, the countries that restrict or criminalize LGBTQ+ expression tend to share several key characteristics:
🔍 What These Countries Have in Common
1. Authoritarian or Illiberal Governance
-
Power is concentrated in a small ruling group or leader.
-
Judicial independence, media freedom, and civil liberties are weakened.
-
Political dissent is discouraged or criminalized.
Examples: Russia (Putin), China (CCP/Xi Jinping), Hungary (Orbán), Iran, Uganda.
2. State-Controlled or Restricted Media
-
Governments control or heavily influence TV, newspapers, and online platforms.
-
Independent media and journalists face surveillance, censorship, or shutdowns.
-
LGBTQ+ stories are either banned or re-framed as "Western propaganda" or "immorality."
3. Use of “Traditional Values” or Religion to Justify Control
-
LGBTQ+ people are portrayed as threats to the "natural family," "national identity," or "morality."
-
Religious narratives (Islamic in Iran/Nigeria, Christian in Uganda/Hungary, Confucian in China) are used politically—not just spiritually.
-
“Protect the children” is a common rallying cry.
4. Weaponization of Law Against Minorities
-
Laws are written vaguely—terms like “obscenity,” “abnormal,” “propaganda,” or “promotion” let governments target a wide range of content or behavior.
-
LGBTQ+ people are made symbolic targets to distract from corruption, economic issues, or unpopular policies.
5. Suppression of Civil Society and Dissent
-
LGBTQ+ organizations, Pride events, and advocacy groups are shut down, banned, or surveilled.
-
Online speech is monitored and punished.
-
Broader human rights defenders—feminists, journalists, students—are often attacked too.
6. Populism and Nationalism
-
These regimes often promote a version of “cultural purity” or national rebirth.
-
Anything “foreign” (especially progressive Western ideas about gender and sexuality) is labeled as a threat.
🧠 Why This Matters
Laws targeting LGBTQ+ people are rarely just about sexuality or gender. They’re about control:
-
Over bodies
-
Over thought
-
Over speech
-
Over resistance
That’s why what starts as “just a bill about obscenity” or “protecting children” can quickly morph into a system that criminalizes difference.
And once LGBTQ+ rights are weakened, other rights often follow: free speech, privacy, education, reproductive rights, freedom of assembly.
🧭 So if the U.S. passes IODA?
It joins a global trend—away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. Not because the bill says “LGBTQ people are illegal,” but because it creates a legal and moral framework that erases them from public life.
No comments:
Post a Comment