This bill inserts a new statutory definition of “obscene” or “obscenity” into section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 and makes a targeted change to the criminal provision for obscene or harassing telephone calls. The added definition creates a three-part test—prurient appeal, depiction of sexual acts or contact with an ‘objective intent’ to arouse, and lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value—and confines the definition to visual depictions.
Separately, the bill removes the phrase that required intent "to abuse, threaten, or harass another person" from 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(A). Together, these changes change how federal regulators and prosecutors will identify and pursue communications as obscene, while raising new questions about mens rea, statutory scope, and constitutional limits that compliance officers and legal teams need to sort out before enforcement or content-moderation policies are adjusted.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds paragraph (38) to section 3 of the Communications Act to define obscene visual depictions using a three-part test and cross-references 18 U.S.C. 2246 for key terms. It also deletes the phrase that imposes an intent requirement in the federal statute criminalizing obscene or harassing calls (47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(A)).
Who It Affects
The change targets entities regulated under the Communications Act—telecom carriers, broadcasters, and platforms that operate in interstate communications—as well as federal prosecutors, the FCC, and private entities that moderate or transmit visual content. Individuals who send or host visual sexual content transmitted over interstate or foreign communications will also be directly implicated.
Why It Matters
By placing a statutory obscenity definition inside the Communications Act, the bill supplies regulators and courts a textual test for communications enforcement and platform compliance. Removing the intent phrase from the obscene/harassing-calls provision reduces the mens rea hurdle for enforcement and therefore changes the legal risk calculus for carriers, platforms, and individual speakers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the Communications Act to add a new, stand-alone statutory definition of “obscene” or “obscenity” explicitly tied to visual material—photos, images, graphic files, films, videotapes, and other visual depictions. The definition follows a tripartite structure: the material must (1) appeal to prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (2) depict or describe sexual acts or sexual contact (using the definitions found in 18 U.S.C. 2246) with what the bill calls an “objective intent” to arouse or titillate; and (3) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when viewed as a whole.
The statutory language confines the definition’s reach to visual depictions and ties key terms to a separate federal criminal statute.
In practical terms, that means the Communications Act will now contain its own text for identifying obscene visual material rather than relying solely on case law applying the Miller test or agency interpretations. The bill does not use Miller’s “patently offensive” phrasing or expressly invoke “community standards”; instead it retains the prurient-interest and lack-of-value elements and adds the novel phrase “objective intent to arouse,” which shifts how intent and purpose might be evaluated in enforcement or adjudication.Alongside the definitional insertion, the bill makes a narrow but consequential change to §223(a)(1)(A) by striking the clause that required communications to be made “with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.” Removing that phrase would allow enforcement of the obscene-or-harassing-calls prohibition without proof of that particular subjective intent, potentially lowering the mens rea barrier for criminal or civil enforcement under the Communications Act.Two housekeeping edits follow: the bill updates a cross-reference within the Act so internal citations align with the new paragraph numbering.
Those technical changes matter because they determine which statutory text courts and agencies cite when bringing actions or issuing rules under the Communications Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates paragraph (38) in 47 U.S.C. §3 that applies its obscenity test specifically to visual depictions (pictures, images, graphic files, films, videotapes, and similar media).
Its three-part statutory test requires: (A) prurient appeal to nudity, sex, or excretion; (B) depiction or description of a sexual act or sexual contact coupled with an ‘objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify’ sexual desires; and (C) that the material ‘taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.’, The bill borrows the statutory meanings of ‘sexual act’ and ‘sexual contact’ from 18 U.S.C. §2246, linking obscenity analysis to the federal sex-crime definitional framework.
It deletes the language requiring intent ‘to abuse, threaten, or harass another person’ from 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(A), which removes a stated mens rea element for prosecutions or enforcement of obscene or harassing calls.
A technical conforming amendment updates an internal cross-reference (affecting §271(c)(1)(A)) so the Act’s citation points to the renumbered paragraph after insertion.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act’s name as the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act.” This is a conventional short-title clause with no substantive effect on interpretation or enforcement.
New statutory definition of 'obscene' or 'obscenity' (47 U.S.C. §3(38))
Inserts a new paragraph into section 3 of the Communications Act that defines obscenity for visual depictions via a three-part test. The provision explicitly confines the rule to pictures, images, graphic files, films, videotapes, and similar visual media, and it requires that material both appeal to prurient interest and depict sexual acts or contact aimed (objectively) to arouse, while lacking serious value. Practically, this is a legislative gloss on what constitutes obscene visual material for communications law enforcement and regulatory actions; it will be the starting point for compliance policies and FCC or prosecutorial determinations involving transmitted visual content.
Technical and conforming amendment to internal cross-reference
Adjusts a citation in §271(c)(1)(A) to reflect the new paragraph numbering after insertion of the obscenity definition. While technical, accurate cross-references are critical in statutory regimes because they control what statutory language agencies and courts rely upon when assessing authority or obligations under the Communications Act.
Change to §223(a)(1)(A): removal of intent phrase
Amends the provision that criminalizes obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications by striking the clause that required the caller to act ‘with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.’ That edit eliminates the specific textual mens rea for the conduct described immediately before the struck phrase, so prosecutors and regulators would not need to prove that particular subjective intent for enforcement under that paragraph. The change could alter charging decisions and threshold legal analyses in cases involving transmissions deemed obscene or harassing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal prosecutors and law enforcement — the statutory definition and the removal of the intent clause lower evidentiary hurdles and provide clearer textual bases for bringing communications-related obscenity or harassment cases.
- The Federal Communications Commission and regulators — the Act will contain an explicit textual standard they can cite when issuing enforcement actions, guidance, or rules about obscene visual content in interstate communications.
- Recipients of obscene or harassing communications — individuals who receive unwanted obscene visual material or harassing calls gain a statutory framework that may make enforcement and remedies more accessible.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online platforms, hosting services, and carriers — they face greater legal and compliance risk because a statutory obscenity definition can be used to justify takedown demands, enforcement actions, or liability claims for transmitted visual material.
- Publishers, artists, and lawful speakers — the ‘objective intent to arouse’ element and the elimination of a specific intent requirement in §223 could expand the universe of material vulnerable to enforcement or criminal exposure, increasing chilling risk for creative and journalistic content.
- Courts and public defenders — the lowered mens rea burden in §223 may produce more prosecutions and pretrial litigation over constitutional challenges, imposing resource and procedural costs on the judiciary and defense system.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize easier enforcement against obscene and harassing communications or to preserve robust protections for expressive content: the bill lowers barriers to labeling and penalizing visual sexual material by adding a statutory test and removing an intent requirement, but doing so risks expanding criminal and regulatory reach into lawful or ambiguous expression and invites constitutional challenges over vagueness and mens rea.
The bill trades a familiar, court-developed obscenity framework for a statutory test that borrows elements of Miller but departs in important ways. By focusing its definition on visual depictions and requiring an ‘objective intent to arouse,’ the statute changes two variables that matter for enforcement: media type (visual-only) and the character of intent.
The ‘‘objective intent’’ phrase is ambiguous—does it ask whether a reasonable observer would infer the creator’s purpose, or does it create an evidentiary proxy for subjective intent? That ambiguity will be a focal point for litigation and agency rulemaking.
Striking the intent clause from §223(a)(1)(A) reduces the explicit mens rea in that criminal/civil provision, a move that raises classic due-process and First Amendment concerns. Without a stated subjective intent element, otherwise inadvertent or artistic transmissions could fall within the statute’s scope if a court or prosecutor deems them obscene or harassing under the new definition.
The bill also ties core terms to 18 U.S.C. §2246, which aligns obscenity analysis with definitions used in sex-crime prosecutions—potentially drawing obscenity enforcement into an existing statutory web of sexual-offense concepts and their attendant interpretive baggage.
Operationally, affected companies and agencies must decide how to translate the statutory elements into moderation policies, notice-and-takedown procedures, or enforcement thresholds—tasks complicated by the absence of community-standards language and the new intent formulation. The combination of a statutory test, cross-references to a criminal-code definitional section, and a lower mens rea standard means litigation over constitutional vagueness, overbreadth, and improper delegation is likely, and will probably determine how broadly the new definition is applied in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.