Proposed U.S. Bill Threatens Ban on Pornhub and Adult Content Websites

A newly proposed bill in the United States Congress, known as the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), could significantly alter the landscape of online adult content, potentially leading to a federal ban on platforms like Pornhub and other adult entertainment websites.

Introduced on May 14, 2025, by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and co-sponsored by Representative Mary Miller of Illinois, the IODA aims to redefine “obscene” content under federal law, raising critical questions about free speech, digital privacy, and the future of online expression.

Understanding the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA)

The IODA seeks to modernize the legal framework for prosecuting explicit content online by revising the obscenity standards established by the Supreme Court’s 1973 Miller v. California decision.

The current Miller Test defines obscenity based on three criteria: whether the average person finds the work appeals to prurient interest, whether it depicts sexual conduct in an offensive way, and whether it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Critics, including Senator Lee, argue that this test is outdated and difficult to enforce in the digital age, allowing the adult entertainment industry to operate with minimal oversight.

The IODA proposes a simplified definition of obscenity, encompassing any content that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” and “depicts, describes, or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse,” lacking serious value. Notably, the bill removes the “intent” requirement from the Communications Act of 1934, lowering the threshold for prosecution. If passed, this legislation could criminalize a broad range of consensual adult content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries, directly targeting platforms like Pornhub, YouPorn, and others owned by Aylo (formerly MindGeek), as well as individual content creators and users.

Potential Impact on the Adult Entertainment Industry

The IODA’s aggressive approach could have profound implications for the adult entertainment industry, which generates billions annually and attracts millions of users globally. Platforms like Pornhub, the 16th most-visited website worldwide, face the risk of federal prosecution for hosting content deemed obscene under the new definition. Unlike the Miller Test, which considers local community standards and artistic value, the IODA focuses solely on the content’s nature, potentially exposing websites hosted or accessed across state or international borders to legal action.

1. Platform Shutdowns and Self-Censorship

Pornhub and its parent company, Aylo, have already blocked access in 17 U.S. states as of January 1, 2025, due to state-level age-verification laws, citing privacy concerns over collecting sensitive personal information. The IODA’s federal scope could force these platforms to either implement stringent content moderation, shut down operations nationwide, or face hefty fines and criminal charges. This could drive users to unregulated, less secure websites that lack safety measures, as Aylo noted in Louisiana, where traffic dropped 80% after age-verification compliance, redirecting users to “darker corners of the internet.”

2. Impact on Content Creators

Content creators, including adult performers and OnlyFans models, could face prosecution for sharing material deemed obscene, even if consensual and legal under current standards. The removal of the “intent” clause means creators might be liable regardless of their artistic or expressive goals, stifling creativity and livelihoods. Posts on X reflect public sentiment, with one user humorously noting that the bill could criminalize “OF girls and cornhub girls,” highlighting the broad reach of the proposed law.

3. Economic and Cultural Shifts

The adult industry supports thousands of jobs, from performers to tech developers. A federal ban could disrupt this ecosystem, pushing content underground and reducing tax revenue from legal operations. Culturally, the IODA could reshape online expression, as platforms may preemptively censor content to avoid prosecution, affecting not only adult material but also sex education, LGBTQ+ resources, and artistic works mislabeled as obscene.

The Debate: Free Speech vs. Child Safety

The IODA has sparked intense debate among lawmakers, legal experts, and civil rights advocates, with arguments centering on the balance between protecting minors and preserving constitutional rights.

Arguments in Favor

Proponents, led by Senator Lee, argue that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment and that current laws are too vague to curb the adult industry’s societal impact. In a post on X, Lee stated, “Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. But hazy, unenforceable definitions have allowed pornography companies to infect our society, peddle smut to children, and do business across state lines unimpeded.” Supporters, including conservative lawmakers and child safety advocates, assert that the IODA closes loopholes, protects minors from explicit content, and aligns with public support for age-verification laws, as shown by an RMG Research poll indicating majority approval for such measures.

Texas Representative Matt Shaheen, a proponent of similar state laws, emphasized that age-verification protects “the innocence of childhood” and prevents “porn addiction,” citing decades of upheld restrictions on explicit books and magazines. The IODA’s backers, including 24 states in a Supreme Court brief, argue that it’s a routine exercise of state authority to shield children from sexual violence and explicit images.

Arguments Against

Opponents, including the Free Speech Coalition and the ACLU, contend that the IODA violates First Amendment rights by burdening adults’ access to legal content. Mike Stabile of the Free Speech Coalition noted that age-verification laws create a “chilling effect,” deterring users due to privacy concerns over ID uploads or facial recognition. The coalition has challenged state laws in Texas, Florida, and others, with the Texas case (Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton) set for Supreme Court review in January 2025 to determine if such laws infringe on free speech.

Critics also highlight privacy risks, as collecting personal data for age-verification increases the likelihood of breaches, exposing users’ sexual preferences. Aylo has publicly supported age-verification but advocates for device-level solutions to preserve privacy, arguing that state laws drive users to unregulated sites with minimal safety measures. The ACLU warns that vague definitions of “obscene” could censor educational content, LGBTQ+ materials, or reproductive health resources, as seen in Texas, where social media and search engines—key sources of explicit content—are exempt from regulation.

Context: State-Level Restrictions and Industry Response

The IODA builds on a wave of state-level age-verification laws that have already restricted adult content access. As of January 1, 2025, 17 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia—have implemented such laws, prompting Pornhub to block access in these regions. Georgia’s law is set to take effect in July 2025. These laws, inspired by Louisiana’s Act 440, require users to submit government-issued IDs or use third-party verification systems, with non-compliant sites facing fines up to $50,000 per violation or civil lawsuits from parents.

Pornhub’s response has been to block IP addresses in affected states, displaying messages urging users to contact lawmakers. The company argues that these laws are “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous,” driving traffic to non-compliant sites that lack content moderation or user safety protocols. In Florida, Google Trends showed a spike in VPN searches after the ban, indicating users are bypassing restrictions. The Free Speech Coalition has sued multiple states, alleging that these laws constitute “state censorship” and create a “massive chilling effect” on legal speech.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

The IODA represents a broader conservative push to regulate digital content, aligning with initiatives like Project 2025, which includes measures to ban pornography. Russell Vought, a Project 2025 author, described age-verification laws as a “back door” to broader bans, raising concerns among adult industry stakeholders about a potential nationwide crackdown under a second Trump presidency. While Trump has not explicitly endorsed the IODA, his 2016 pledge to consider a commission on pornography’s public health impact suggests openness to such policies.

The Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on Texas’s age-verification law could set a precedent for the IODA’s fate. If upheld, conservative activists may push for a national law, while a ruling against could bolster free speech arguments. Legal experts like Vera Eidelman of the ACLU argue that even device-level verification, favored by Pornhub, may be unconstitutional if it burdens adults’ access to protected speech. Meanwhile, the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s proposed Digital Age Assurance Act offers a device-based alternative, supported by Aylo, but its adoption remains uncertain.

Conclusion

The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act marks a pivotal moment in the debate over online adult content in the United States. By redefining obscenity and lowering prosecution barriers, the bill threatens to reshape the adult entertainment industry, impacting platforms, creators, and consumers. While proponents argue it protects minors and addresses societal harms, opponents warn of privacy violations, censorship, and the risk of driving users to unregulated platforms. As the IODA progresses through Congress and state-level battles continue, the tension between child safety and free speech will remain at the forefront, with the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decisions likely to shape the future of digital expression.

Key Takeaways:

• The IODA, introduced by Senator Mike Lee, seeks to redefine obscenity, potentially banning platforms like Pornhub nationwide.

• The bill could criminalize consensual adult content, impacting creators and platforms, and drive users to unsafe sites.

• Privacy and free speech concerns dominate opposition, with the Free Speech Coalition challenging similar state laws.

• The Supreme Court’s January 2025 ruling on Texas’s age-verification law may influence the IODA’s viability.