Content on this page was borrowed from National Center on Sexual Exploitation with additions
“Porn laws,” more formally known as obscenity laws in the United States have not been enforced by the Department of Justice for the past seven years, and were on a steady decline before that. Did you know that distribution of pornography can be prosecuted federally, and in most states?! The Department of Justice quietly closed the Adult Hard Core Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice, and only investigates child pornography cases now. This was done quietly, and any inquiries from the public, non-profit leaders, and other organizations on the number of adult hard-core pornography cases being tried are not answered (because they aren’t prosecuting).
Federal Obscenity Laws
Federal obscenity laws, which are not being enforced, prohibit distribution of hardcore, obscene pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite or hotel/motel TV and in sexually oriented businesses and other retail shops.
The 93 U.S. Attorneys (each state has at least one) enforce the Federal obscenity laws. FBI Agents, Postal Inspectors and Customs Officers investigate violations of Federal obscenity laws.
These laws include:
-
18 U.S.C. 1461 Mailing obscene matter
-
18 U.S.C. 1462 Importation or use of a common carrier to transport obscene matter*
-
18 U.S.C. 1464 Broadcasting obscene language
-
18 U.S.C. 1465 Interstate transportation of obscene matter*
-
18 U.S.C. 1466 Wholesale and retail sale of obscene matter which has been transported in interstate commerce
-
18 U.S.C. 1468 Distribution of obscene matter by cable or satellite TV
-
18 U.S.C. § 1470 Transfer of obscene material to minors
-
18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet
-
18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
-
47 U.S.C. 223 Making an obscene communication by means of telephone
*Sections 1462 and 1465 cited above also prohibit distribution of obscenity on the Internet.
The United States Federal government has prosecuted major producers and distributors of obscene pornography in the past. However, today, rather than aggressively enforcing federal obscenity laws against large distributors of obscene pornography, the Department of Justice has targeted primarily small operations that distributed the most extreme hardcore pornography (for example the case of Ira Isaacs or “Max Hardcore” case) and prosecuted very few even though the federal and state laws are robust. Thus, illegal, obscene pornography is flooding our nation and the harm is great. Much can be done to turn this tide. Join Us to be involved!
State Obscenity Laws
Each United States Attorney General can also prosecute pornography distribution occurring within, or coming from without, of their states. Here are just some examples in force today.
Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming
Obscenity Case Law
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) – Holding that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) – Material that is not obscene may still be harmful for children, and its marketing may be regulated
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) – Held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and can be regulated by the states. Also provided the current test for determining whether material is obscene.
Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) – The prohibition against obscene telephone communications is constitutional because the Government has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors under the First Amendment. However, prohibiting indecent telephone communications is not constitutional because this exceeds what is necessary to limit the access of minors.
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) – Holding that children have a right to be protected from obscene or harmful content, but not if a large amount of legal speech for adults is also prohibited. Judge O’Connor opined that one day an “adult-only zone” on the internet may make this possible.
Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) – Holding that parental filters would serve the compelling government interest of protecting children from pornography.