U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has once again introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), a controversial legislative proposal that seeks to redefine how obscenity is regulated across the country.

Co-sponsored in the House by Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), the bill aims to establish a national standard for obscenity, bypassing the longstanding “Miller test” and invoking a legal framework reminiscent of the 19th-century Comstock laws.

According to Lee, the current standards for defining obscenity are outdated and insufficient.

“Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment,” Lee said in a statement, “but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children.” He described the bill as an attempt to update the Communications Act of 1934 by replacing ambiguity with “practical standards.”

Under the proposed legislation, obscenity would be defined as material that, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests in nudity, sex, or excretion; depicts or describes actual or simulated sexual acts with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desires; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Notably, this new definition does not require all three elements of the traditional Miller test to be satisfied and replaces “local community standards” with a broad “national community standard”—a significant shift that constitutional scholars say could violate the First Amendment.

First introduced as a statement bill in December 2022 and reintroduced in June 2024, IODA has yet to progress beyond committee. However, with the current right-leaning composition of Congress, the measure may have more traction than in prior sessions.

Critics, including First Amendment attorney Corey Silverstein, have denounced the proposal as unconstitutional and redundant. “He is absolutely ridiculous and has no authority to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court,” Silverstein said. “I’d rather he find a hobby than continue to introduce far-right laws that have no chance of accomplishing anything other than wasting taxpayer dollars and the courts’ time that it will take to strike down this preposterous proposed law.”

Legal experts point to the existing Miller v. California (1973) framework, which requires content to meet all three prongs to be classified as obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. This framework has allowed local jurisdictions to apply their own community standards, a principle that Lee’s bill would override with a sweeping federal mandate.

Supporters of the bill, such as Rep. Miller, argue that federal enforcement tools are necessary to combat the spread of online pornography, especially to minors.

“The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act equips law enforcement with the tools they need to target and remove obscene material from the internet,” she said, calling it “alarmingly destructive” and “far outside the bounds of protected free speech.”

The bill’s language would also eliminate provisions in current law that require proof of harassment or threats to prosecute those transmitting obscene content, significantly broadening federal enforcement powers.

While the bill is unlikely to become law without facing significant legal challenges, its reintroduction signals a renewed effort by conservative lawmakers to regulate online sexual content through national legislation. Civil liberties groups and free speech advocates are expected to challenge the measure should it gain legislative momentum.