Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Sending Sexy Selfies Unless You’re Married
The law could also ban any sexualized images, plays, or performances, whether pornographic.
Oklahoma’s anti-porn law is so severe that it could make sexting out of marriage a criminal offense.
The bill, which is quite extensive, would make it a crime to view “obscene material”. The bill would also limit “unlawful” porn production and distribution, with enforcement through criminal prosecutions and private suits, and make it a misdemeanor for anyone to exhibit, publish, or pose in porn. It would also define these terms in a way that would include an enormous range of sexually-charged adult activities (far beyond what most people would consider to be pornography).
This bill is part of a conservative wave that targets a very wide definition of “porn”, First Amendment be damned, which threatens to restrict not only “hardcore” pornography but also all forms of erotica. This bill, whether it passes or not, represents a renewed moral panic about porn, which is more common among conservatives, but also in progressive circles. These attempts can take the form pressure campaigns against financial institutions who do business with porn workers or porn companies. They can also involve lawsuits filed against porn sites or other platforms that share porn. In recent years, many of these laws have been aimed at requiring that porn websites verify the age of their users. Sometimes, like with the Oklahoma bill, they try to expand what constitutes illegal pornography or obscenity.
|
DESCRIBING UNLAWFUL PORN
Oklahoma Senate Bill 1976 is the measure introduced by state senator Dusty Deevers (R-District 32). Dusty Deevers, R-District 32, also introduced legislation to repeal the no-fault divorce. The bill is scheduled to be introduced formally on February 5. However, the text had already been filed last week. This gave us an early warning of how bad this legislation was.
Pornography is generally protected by the First Amendment, but there are some notable exceptions. Pornography that shows people younger than 18 is not protected by the First Amendment. It also does not cover “obscenity,” a vague term that has been the focus of numerous court cases. Most adult pornography, however, is protected.
Deevers’ bill tries to create a new category for largely forbidden content, called “unlawful Pornography,” despite decades of First Amendment laws.
The measure states that porn is “any visual representation or individual image stored on or contained on any medium, including but not limited, film, motion pictures, videotapes, photographs, negatives, undeveloped films, slides, photographic products, reproductions of photographic products, plays, or performances” when it involves any kind of sexual act, nudity or partial nudity or sexual fetish. Illegal depictions can include oral sex or anal sex as well as masturbation. Included are any “lewd display of the exposed genitals, buttocks or breasts for the purpose to sexually stimulate the viewer.” Also included are any “physical restraints such as binding and fettering within the context of sexual activity.”
Even if this ban was only on “hardcore” pornography, it would be still bad. It’s not only about “hardcore” pornography. The definition of porn is so broad that it includes all porn videos and photos (even the tame ones), as well as erotic drawings and strip clubs.
The production or distribution of “illegal porn” is prohibited unless the content has “serious literary or artistic, educational, scientific, political or other value.”
BROAD ABOUT TO TAKE ON SEXUALITY, SOCIAL MEDICINE, AND MORE
S.B. It would not only justify charges or lawsuits against porn production firms and websites like Pornhub. The law could be used against adult models, porn video performers, or even someone who sent a sexually-charged photo to someone other than their spouse. The bill states that it is not intended to “prevent spouses” from sending sexual images to each other.
This could lead to charges and lawsuits against performers of live shows that include strippers, drag artists, and burlesque performers.
This could lead to lawsuits and charges against many platforms. If they continue to allow access to Oklahomans, companies like Xvidoes or OnlyFans may be held liable – or at least put on trial – if they do not stop. If they fail to remove adult content, any social media platform or streaming service could be held liable.
It would encourage platforms to block Oklahoma users or, if other states followed suit, start moderating all adult content.
Two ways to enforce the law
SB 1976, like Texas’ “abortion bonus law,” would be enforced in part by private lawsuits. The law allows anyone, except for officers or employees of state or local governments in the state, to bring a civil suit against someone they believe has produced or distributed illegal porn, or knowingly assisted and abetted their production or distribution.
The person who filed the lawsuit could recover the costs of court and attorney fees from the person who brought the suit. The person who filed the lawsuit cannot recover their court costs or attorney fees.
The proposed law would also implement criminal enforcement. S.B. In 1976, “buying, procuring, viewing, or possessing” “obscene material” (yes, even “viewing”) was a crime.
Oklahoma law defines obscenity roughly in accordance with the test laid out in Miller v. California. The definition of obscenity under Oklahoma law is based on the test set forth in Miller v. California.
You might think this test would eliminate commercial pornography and the images that people in intimate relationships share with each other. But S.B. But S.B.
