New Obscenity Bill Removes 'Intent to Harass' for Interstate Phone Calls, Broadening Liability

The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act is a short piece of legislation making two major shifts in how federal law approaches content regulation. First, it updates the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a specific, three-part legal test for defining visual content—like pictures, films, or graphic files—as “obscene.” Second, and perhaps more importantly for everyday communication, it removes a key protection regarding obscene or harassing phone calls made across state lines.

The Visual Content Standard: What’s Obscene Now?

For visual content, the bill essentially codifies the long-standing legal standard known as the Miller test. For a picture or film to be considered obscene under this new definition, it must meet three conditions when viewed as a whole: (1) it appeals to a “prurient interest” (a shameful or morbid interest) in sex; (2) it depicts sexual acts or lewd genital displays in an offensive way; and (3) it lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This standard sets a high bar and is meant to provide clear boundaries for law enforcement and content creators. If you’re a digital artist or a media producer, this provision clarifies the legal line in the sand, even if that line has been in the legal system for decades.

The Communication Catch: Intent No Longer Required

Here’s the part that impacts regular folks making phone calls: the bill changes the rules concerning obscene or harassing phone calls made across state lines or internationally. Currently, to prosecute someone for these calls, the law requires proof that the caller had the “intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.” This bill removes that requirement entirely. Think of it like this: if you used to need proof of both the bad content and the bad intent to file charges, now only the bad content matters.

This is a significant shift, lowering the threshold for what constitutes a federal crime in interstate communication. If you make a phone call that is deemed “obscene” by the legal standard, you could potentially face liability even if you didn’t intend to abuse or harass the recipient. For example, a private conversation between two consenting adults that happens to be graphic, or even a strongly worded, offensive joke that crosses state lines, could theoretically be subject to prosecution based on the content alone, without a prosecutor needing to prove malicious intent. This move raises immediate questions about whether it could chill free expression by making people wary of saying anything potentially offensive over the phone, even in private conversations, if that communication crosses a state line.