Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The bill adds a statutory definition of “obscene; obscenity” to section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 for visual depictions, specifying three prongs (prurient appeal, depiction of sexual acts with an objective intent to arouse, and lack of serious value). It ties “sexual act” and “sexual contact” to the definitions in 18 U.S.C. 2246, makes a conforming technical change to a cross-reference in section 271(c)(1)(A), and amends 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(A) by striking a clause referring to intent to abuse, threaten, or harass (text ambiguous about exact placement).
Progressives focus on free‑speech chill and harm to sexual expression
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow substantive statutory amendment that provides specific replacement language to define 'obscene; obscenity' within the Communications Act and makes conforming edits.
The bill adds a statutory definition of “obscene; obscenity” to section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 for visual depictions, specifying three prongs (prurient appeal, depiction of sexual acts with an objective intent to arouse, and lack of serious value).
It ties “sexual act” and “sexual contact” to the definitions in 18 U.S.C. 2246, makes a conforming technical change to a cross-reference in section 271(c)(1)(A), and amends 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(A) by striking a clause referring to intent to abuse, threaten, or harass (text ambiguous about exact placement).
Narrow but ideologically charged; lacks built‑in compromise and risks constitutional challenge, limiting enactment prospects despite limited fiscal impact.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow substantive statutory amendment that provides specific replacement language to define 'obscene; obscenity' within the Communications Act and makes conforming edits. The textual insertion is concrete and targeted, but the bill lacks explanatory findings, fiscal acknowledgement, attention to edge cases, and accountability or implementation guidance.
Progressives focus on free‑speech chill and harm to sexual expression
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives focus on free‑speech chill and harm to sexual expression
Likely skeptical or opposed.
While the bill attempts statutory clarity, the language is broad and uses subjective standards that could chill protected expression or target marginalized sexual content.
Mixed.
The bill offers clearer statutory language useful for regulators, but raises constitutional and vagueness concerns, especially if the intent element is removed.
Generally favorable.
The bill provides a firmer statutory basis to regulate obscene visual material over communications networks and assists enforcement against pornographic transmissions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged; lacks built‑in compromise and risks constitutional challenge, limiting enactment prospects despite limited fiscal impact.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives focus on free‑speech chill and harm to sexual expression
Narrow but ideologically charged; lacks built‑in compromise and risks constitutional challenge, limiting enactment prospects despite limite…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow substantive statutory amendment that provides specific replacement language to define 'obscene; obscenity' within the Communications Act and makes conform…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.