The obscenity is the bill
A proposal to redefine obscenity could criminalize nudity, shrink free expression, and roll back decades of progress
Congressional Republicans have reintroduced a sweeping bill aimed at redefining obscenity at the federal level—a move critics say could criminalize vast swaths of constitutionally protected expression. Championed by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” seeks to replace the long-standing Miller Test with a more aggressive and vague national standard for what constitutes obscene 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 argued in a statement.1
The bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the long-standing Miller Test—used since 1973 to determine whether material is legally obscene—with a broader federal definition. The Miller Test considers whether a work (1) appeals to prurient interest, (2) depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way based on community standards, and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Lee's bill retains the first and third prongs but removes the second, replacing it with language that defines obscenity as content intended to “arouse, titillate, or gratify”—a shift that significantly lowers the threshold for prosecution.2
Put bluntly, this bill is a porn ban, full stop. Anything which “titillates” becomes subject to government censorship.
Lee previously introduced versions of the bill in 2022 and 2024, but both failed to gain co-sponsorship in a Democrat-controlled Congress. With Republicans now holding a majority in both houses, the proposal may face a very different legislative path.
A new definition with old consequences
Critics warn that the bill’s language is not just aimed at what most would consider “extreme pornography.” Legal analysts suggest the new definition is dangerously broad. Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, believes the bill is baldly unconstitutional, telling the libertarian media outlet Reason.com, “There’s nothing about that definition that I think would survive constitutional review”.3
Samantha Cole at 404 Media expressed similar concern, writing that under this bill, “anyone sharing or posting content that’s at all sexual or ‘intended to arouse’ could be prosecuted for a federal crime”.4 Even mainstream television series and sexual education materials could potentially fall under scrutiny, Ricci Joy Levy of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation told Reason.com. Levy argues the bill essentially empowers the government to label nearly all erotic or even romantic content as criminal: “The point is to loosen the definition of obscenity so it's more broad and the government is removed of the obligation to prove patent offensiveness”.5
This expansion may well pose unique risks to naturists. The American nudist movement has long been entangled with obscenity laws, dating back to the early 20th century when federal censors used the Comstock Act to block the mailing of nudist publications and photographs. In the 1940s and ‘50s, entire shipments of nudist magazines were seized as “obscene material,” despite their non-sexual content. Even the word “nudism” was sometimes enough to trigger postal investigations.
Today’s naturist organizations could find themselves walking a legal tightrope under the proposed definition. If federal prosecutors no longer have to prove a work is “patently offensive” under community standards, and instead only need to argue that it was created with the intent to “gratify the sexual desires of a person,” any nude imagery—even non-sexual—could be construed as criminal if interpreted subjectively. This kind of legal ambiguity chills expression and threatens lawful content that promotes body freedom, artistic expression, or sexual wellness. Naturist websites, social media groups, educational content about the human body, and even personal photographs could become targets.
Freedom of expression on the line
The political motives are transparent. As Oliver Willis at Daily Kos pointed out, this is less about protecting children and more about escalating the culture war: “Going after porn was also part of Project 2025, the conservative plan pulled together by Trump administration alumni and the right-wing Heritage Foundation”.6 By cloaking censorship in moral concern, lawmakers aim to redefine the bounds of legal expression through a narrow ideological lens.
It’s worth remembering that nudity has never been inherently obscene. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for context, community standards, and meaningful artistic or educational value in evaluating claims of obscenity. To erase that nuance and enforce a blanket federal rule, as this bill proposes, would be to return to an era of repression where body-based expression of all kinds is viewed with suspicion.
Whether you’re a naturist, an artist, an educator, or simply someone who values bodily autonomy and free expression, this legislation should raise alarms. Its potential consequences stretch far beyond the adult entertainment industry. It threatens to undermine decades of hard-won rights and redraw the line between public morality and personal liberty.
We must resist the return of a federal morality police. Nudity is not a crime. Arousal is not a crime. And expression that challenges taboos is not a crime. 🪐
Mondeaux, C. (2025, May 9). Sen. Mike Lee wants a national definition of obscenity. Here’s why. Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/05/09/mike-lee-cracks-down-on-pornography/
Pack, A. (2025, May 9). New GOP bill seeks to take sledgehammer to online porn industry. The Lion. https://readlion.com/new-gop-bill-seeks-to-take-sledgehammer-to-online-porn-industry/
Brown, E. N. (2025, May 12). Mike Lee, Mary Miller want congressional Republicans to redefine obscenity. Reason. https://reason.com/2025/05/12/republicans-want-to-redefine-obscenity/
Cole, S. (2025, May 12). New bill would make all pornography a federal crime in the U.S. 404 Media. https://www.404media.co/mike-lee-porn-law-interstate-obscenity-definition-act/
(Brown, 2025).
Willis, O. (2025, May 9). You’ve got to hand it to them: GOP wants to restrict porn. Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/5/9/2321282/-You-ve-got-to-hand-it-to-them-GOP-wants-to-restrict-porn
Not to be overly cynical, but this the third time this messaging bill has been introduced. It went nowhere previously and will go nowhere now. And the timing this go round seems to suggest that what Lee would really like us not to look at is not so much pornography but a certain Qatari jet.
As I wrote on Bluesky, this is a five-alarm fire. Fight back now.