OK Senator Dusty Deevers Spars With Freedom From Religious Foundation Over Bill To Ban Pornography

Pornography is not speech. Prostitution is a crime, and rightly so. But some would have us believe that if you set up a camera, film it, and publish it on the internet for thousands of minors to see, magically it becomes “protected expression.” This is obviously absurd.

Thankfully, the Common Law and SCOTUS precedent is more grounded. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991), the Court upheld bans on public nudity at clubs. Justice Rehnquist noted that public indecency—including nudity—was a criminal offense at common law.

The Founders banned public indecency, and so can we. And if nudity can be banned behind closed doors in a club, it can absolutely be banned on the internet which is even more publicly accessible.

More recently, in Miller, SCOTUS laid out when content is obscene and therefore can be banned.

1. Appeals to prurient interest.

2. Is patently offensive according to state law or community standards.

3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Modern pornography clearly checks box 1 and box 3. The only thing missing? Box 2—a state law that defines and prohibits obscene content according to the Miller test. That’s why I filed SB593.  

Porn advocates (imagine publicly identifying yourself as a porn advocate) point to Reno v. ACLU (1997). But in Reno, the court struck down the CDA because it banned content that was not just “obscene”, but also “indecent”—a term they said was too vague to be enforceable.

Further, Reno was partially based on the assertion that internet is not as invasive as radio and TV. How is that assessment holding up?

The factual findings in Reno have been proven wrong. We can write laws tailored to the Miller Test and we can win in the courts.

The Founders didn’t fight a revolution to protect degenerate obscenity. Most of us, even among those of us who want to abolish pornography, have views that are probably moderate compared to theirs.

I am very thankful for @AGJamesUthmeier’s pursuit of this issue. His team is investigating whether porn sites are adhering to FL law requiring age verification checks and finding that they are as easy to pass through as the border was under Biden. These issues need to be taken into court and into the court of public opinion. I encourage AG Uthmeier and his team lean into these arguments that porn is not free speech wherever possible.