GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook

Magats_Love_NHB

Let It Burn!

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook​

Mike Lee wants to deliver a death knell to PornHub.


Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law would “pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“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,” said Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Much of the modern anti-porn movement has sought to focus on the harmful psychological impact that pornography may have on young web users and children. It has targeted online access to porn by instituting age-verification requirements for porn websites that bar underage users. Over the past decade, over a dozen states have passed legislation designed to curb youth access to porn, much of which is still being challenged in court.
 

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook​

Mike Lee wants to deliver a death knell to PornHub.


Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law would “pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“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,” said Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Much of the modern anti-porn movement has sought to focus on the harmful psychological impact that pornography may have on young web users and children. It has targeted online access to porn by instituting age-verification requirements for porn websites that bar underage users. Over the past decade, over a dozen states have passed legislation designed to curb youth access to porn, much of which is still being challenged in court.
Leave it to you to be the defender of pornhub.
 
Leave it to you to be the defender of pornhub.
I remember the 70's when the frat house would have to get boot leg copies of Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas because it was illegal.
With easy access to porn on the internet it's not a bad idea to make it illegal on the internet.. I wouldn't want my kid watching porn, and you know they all do these days.
I have no objection to adult access.
Personally, I find that stuff to be boring although I can see BowelWoman, MrTinyPenis, Phany , and Diseasel needing to watch it.
Bowel and Phany already openly admit they fantasize about me, I make
TinyPenis' little mothballs tingle and Diseasel is constantly trying to finger me.
 
Last edited:
I remember the 70's when the frat house would have to get boot leg copies of Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas because it was illegal.
With easy access to porn on the internet it's not a bad idea to make it illegal on the internet.. I wouldn't want my kid watching porn, and you know they all do these days.
I have no objection to adult access.
Personally, I find that stuff to be boring although I can see BowelWoman, MrTinyPenis, Phany , and Diseasel needing to watch it.
Bowel and Phany already openly admit they fantasize about me, I make
TinyPenis' little mothballs tingle and Diseasel is constantly trying to finger me.
Agreed on all points. Kids shouldn't have access,....no way.
 
The Supremes said porn was in the eyes of the beholder. The reds are claiming they should decide what people can watch. They are already doing book censorship. Where are the limits?
No porn for kids,...anyone with any common sense should be able to agree with that.
 

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook​

Mike Lee wants to deliver a death knell to PornHub.


Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law would “pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“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,” said Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Much of the modern anti-porn movement has sought to focus on the harmful psychological impact that pornography may have on young web users and children. It has targeted online access to porn by instituting age-verification requirements for porn websites that bar underage users. Over the past decade, over a dozen states have passed legislation designed to curb youth access to porn, much of which is still being challenged in court.
There goes your new job.
 
I remember the 70's when the frat house would have to get boot leg copies of Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas because it was illegal.
With easy access to porn on the internet it's not a bad idea to make it illegal on the internet.. I wouldn't want my kid watching porn, and you know they all do these days.
I have no objection to adult access.
Personally, I find that stuff to be boring although I can see BowelWoman, MrTinyPenis, Phany , and Diseasel needing to watch it.
Bowel and Phany already openly admit they fantasize about me, I make
TinyPenis' little mothballs tingle and Diseasel is constantly trying to finger me.
I wish Bowel would stop sending me nudes of her. My dog found one in the trash and it killed my dog.
 
My main problem with kids seeing online porn is that online porn is so low quality....I think that is very likely to damage their entire erotic lives....which is sad to see.
 
Even the left wing 'scientists' are finally admitting porn has had a horrible negative social effect, especially on male/female relations and attitudes, and not just in kids.
 
This would be against the 1st. It's stupid to waste time and energy on laws that will be overturned.

No, it wouldn't. The 1st doesn't protect all speech, it protects political and religious speech. The scam of politicizing sexual fetishism is a commie invention targeted at gullible absolutists who like to spout there should be no restrictions on social behaviors at all, i.e. libertoons, most of whom aren't conservatives, just anarchist sociopaths hiding behind a false flag.

AI Overview
Learn more

The First Amendment, in its original intent, aimed to protect freedom of speech from government censorship and abridgment, but it's unlikely the Founders intended to protect every utterance without limitation. While they championed open debate and the free exchange of ideas, they also recognized the need for some restrictions.


Here's a more detailed look:
  • Broad Protection:
    The Founders believed in the power of free speech as a means to discover and spread truth, and they saw it as crucial for a healthy democracy.
  • No Absolute Freedom:
    The First Amendment doesn't guarantee absolute freedom of speech. Some speech is not protected, such as incitement to violence, defamation, or obscenity.

  • Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions:
    The government can impose restrictions on speech based on time, place, and manner, as long as they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication
 
I don't agree with you on most things but Kids should NOT be able to watch porn.
If you are an adult fine . if you want to watch porn go to it, But keep it away from kids.

Why draw the line at Sexual Content which is not appropriate for Kids?

Why should restrictions only be applied to Kids?

If we are going down the road of restricting access to media which at least a portion of society says is unhealthy for a certain audience...

Many radical-greens in America feel that the Internal Combustion Engine will doom the earth, so why not also ban watching NASCAR racing for Adults?

Many Progressives feel that Nobody should own a gun, so why not ban any Gun Related Content for Both Adults and Kids?

Many American Atheists feel that all religious beliefs are illogical and destructive, so why not ban all Content discussing or practicing Religious Rituals?

Don't the Atheists have a "Right" to ban Religion from other Americans?

I personally believe that Humans should ONLY eat meat, and any human who consumes any form of Fruit, Vegetable, or Nut, is committing an unforgivable sin. We should immediately ban any content about food which is not MEAT! :)


-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top