When I was working on my class at performer.training, I learned there is a confessional definition of sex trafficking and it was rather surprising.

Historically there have been inconsistencies and disagreements regarding the definition of human trafficking among politicians, practitioners, and scholars; however, the legal definition of human trafficking wasn’t set until the year 2,000 with the introduction of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

That gives us the confessional definition of human trafficking.

a) Sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or

b) The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

What we don’t have is a national or congressional definition of obscenity.

If you’ve never seen the movie The People vs Larry Flynt, then you may not realize that the argument of obscenity has made it all the way to the supreme court.

Okay, sure, the movie was a fictional account, but it was based on a true story, and the lawyer in the movie was based on a real lawyer that works in the adult industry, Paul Cambria. But more on him later.

“The Miller Test” is a conservative ruling by the courts that basically told what was and wasn’t illegal or actually “obscene.” The Miller test is based on specific court cases, which are Miller v. California (1973), Smith v. United States (1977), and Pope v. Illinois (1987). The test is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); AND Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sadomasochistic sexual abuse); AND Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Notice the part that says “patently offensive. “ That is the part that a jury can use to decide if what they are looking at is offensive to them and the community they are part of. If a jury finds the material they are viewing OBSCENE, then that material is in violation of the law. So the question is, what is OBSCENE, and what is not? Again that depends on where you live BUT normally (historically, that is) if

• has no storyline
• has no socially redeeming value
• or effects somebody in a way that it would not normally affect them

It would be considered OBSCENE by a jury (based on the Miller test). Therefore in violation of the law since obscenity is against the law.

But there is no legal definition of obscenity. What’s obscene to someone in a small town in Oklahoma but not be deemed as offensive to someone from New York City.

The supreme court had been struggling for decades to develop a coherent definition of and a framework for First Amendment cases involving obscenity and pornography.

In their attempts to balance freedom of speech and expression against the state’s ability to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people through their inherent police power, the justices ultimately determined that they would have to examine pornography issues on a case-by-case basis.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart went on to say that he may not be able to define obscenity, but “I know it when I see it.”

So how do you define it if you want to prosecute someone for producing obscenity?

You go back to the Miller Test.

• has no storyline
• has no socially redeeming value
• or effects somebody in a way that it would not normally affect them

A butt-hurt, uptight Utah republican senator by the name of Mike Lee has unveiled a new bill this week in an effort to create a federal definition of obscenity that, if passed, would have long-lasting effects on the entire industry.

The proposed bill is being called the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA).

The bill would use the Communications Act of 1934 as its starting point, defining obscenity as “…transmitted via interstate or foreign communications,” according to a press release from his office.

“Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment and is prohibited from interstate or foreign transmission under U.S. law,” Lee stated. “But obscenity is difficult to define (let alone prosecute) under the current Supreme Court test for obscenity: the ‘Miller Test.’”

Lee said the Miller Test leaves a lot unexplained, such as which “community standards” would apply or which state’s applicable laws would apply. The current prohibitions, according to Lee, also diminish Congress’ ability to regulate obscenity.

Lee’s bill would specifically define obscenity as:

• Taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,
• Depicts, describes, or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify sexual desires of a person, and
• Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Lee said the bill would also strengthen obscenity prohibitions by removing the “intent” requirement that only prohibits the transmission of obscenity for the purposes of abusing, threatening, or harassing a person.