New Federal Bill Redefines 'Obscene' Visuals, Lowers Bar for Interstate Communication Charges

This bill, the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, is taking a swing at updating how federal law defines “obscene” content, specifically when it comes to visual material like photos, videos, or digital images. The goal is to create a single, clear test for obscenity by amending the Communications Act of 1934. For something to be considered legally obscene under this new rule, it must meet three conditions: first, it has to appeal to a person's “unhealthy interest in sex”; second, it must depict sexual acts or contact intended to sexually arouse; and third, when viewed as a whole, it must lack any “serious value,” whether literary, artistic, political, or scientific. This is a big deal because it standardizes a definition that could be applied across the board to digital content moving across state lines.

The Subjectivity Problem: What is 'Unhealthy Interest'?

The most immediate impact of this bill is the introduction of highly subjective language into the legal definition of obscenity. While the three-part test sounds clear on paper, phrases like appealing to an “unhealthy interest in sex” and lacking “serious value” are notoriously difficult to apply consistently. For content creators—from independent filmmakers to digital artists or even adult content platforms—this raises the risk of their work being deemed illegal based on a prosecutor or judge’s personal interpretation of what constitutes “unhealthy.” If you’re a digital artist selling slightly edgy work online, this new standard could create a chilling effect, making you second-guess what you can legally share or sell, purely out of fear of federal charges.

Lowering the Bar for Interstate Charges

Section 2 of the bill also includes a quiet but significant change to federal law regarding harassing or obscene phone calls across state lines. Currently, to prosecute someone for certain types of obscene or harassing interstate communications, the government usually has to prove the caller had the “intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.” This bill removes that specific requirement. This means that for some types of communication, the government wouldn't need to prove your malicious intent; they would only need to prove the communication itself was obscene or harassing. This dramatically lowers the legal threshold for prosecution, making it much easier to charge individuals for communications that cross state lines, even if the sender didn't intend to cause harm or abuse.

Who Pays the Price for Clarity?

While the stated benefit of the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act is to provide clear, uniform standards for law enforcement, the cost is borne by those who rely on the protections of the First Amendment, specifically regarding artistic expression and digital communication. The new definition could be used to target content that falls into gray areas—art that is provocative but has clear artistic merit, or even educational materials that depict sexual content. Furthermore, the removal of the intent requirement for interstate communications means that people who communicate across state lines (which is virtually everyone now, thanks to the internet) face a higher risk of legal liability for what they say or send, even if they were just trying to be provocative or funny, and not actually threatening anyone.