Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 by inserting a new, detailed definition of “obscene; obscenity” for visual depictions, adopting a three-part test (prurient appeal, depiction of sexual acts with objective intent to arouse, and lack of serious value) and cross-referencing 18 U.S.C. 2246 for sexual-act definitions. It also makes a technical conforming citation change and removes the phrase ", with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person" from the undesignated matter after clause (ii) of 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(A).
Progressives stress free‑speech chilling and harm to marginalized creators
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory amendment that supplies precise definitional text and explicit conforming edits but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, procedural, or safeguard detail.
The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 by inserting a new, detailed definition of “obscene; obscenity” for visual depictions, adopting a three-part test (prurient appeal, depiction of sexual acts with objective intent to arouse, and lack of serious value) and cross-referencing 18 U.S.C. 2246 for sexual-act definitions.
It also makes a technical conforming citation change and removes the phrase ", with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person" from the undesignated matter after clause (ii) of 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(A).
Short, administratively implementable text helps, but high controversy over speech and likely legal challenges reduce prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory amendment that supplies precise definitional text and explicit conforming edits but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, procedural, or safeguard detail.
Progressives stress free‑speech chilling and harm to marginalized creators
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress free‑speech chilling and harm to marginalized creators
Likely skeptical or opposed.
The new federal definition risks expanding enforcement against sexual expression online, may be vague, and could chill lawful speech and marginalized creators.
Supporters' child-protection aims are understandable, but civil‑liberties tradeoffs worry this persona.
Mixed.
Values protecting children and reducing interstate obscenity transmission, but concerned about legal clarity and administrative consequences.
Would seek amendments to tighten definitions and ensure predictable enforcement and constitutional compliance.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as strengthening federal tools to curb interstate obscene communications and protect public morals and children online.
Some will want even stronger enforcement, but overall view is favorable.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Short, administratively implementable text helps, but high controversy over speech and likely legal challenges reduce prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress free‑speech chilling and harm to marginalized creators
Short, administratively implementable text helps, but high controversy over speech and likely legal challenges reduce prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory amendment that supplies precise definitional text and explicit conforming edits but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, procedural…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.