from the insanity-in-clear-view dept
It appears that the illiberal, transphobic pipe dream of banning all pornography has reached an enterprising group of far-right Christian nationalist Republicans in Michigan who want to impose the moralistic agendas of a small few on the overwhelming majority of the people.
Rep. Josh Schriver leads five other lawmakers with the recent introduction of the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act, known as House Bill (HB) 4938, to the Michigan Legislature. He presents the measure as a public decency and public safety solution to what he views as harmful speech.
The Anticorruption of Public Morals Act is as bad as it sounds. If adopted by the legislature, the bill would prohibit the distribution of depictions of sexual acts that are “real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory” in nature. These acts include consensual depictions of sexual behavior among one or more adults, including all forms of protected consensual expression.
This means an individual or entity that violates the provisions of the bill would be charged with a felony offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison, a fine of $100,000, or a mixture of both. Individuals and organizations that violate the bill’s language that involves more than 100 pieces of “prohibited material” are guilty of the felony charge and are punishable by 25 years in prison or $125,000.
A provision in HB 4938 also restricts internet service providers in the state from implementing mandatory filtering technology to prevent all residents from accessing said “prohibited material.”
This language was added to build on their definition of “circumvention tools.” Rep. Schriver defines “circumvention tools” as any form of software or service designed to bypass censorship provisions. The bill explicitly highlights virtual private networks, proxy servers, or other forms of secure encryption tunneling as these “circumvention tools.” Using VPNs to access prohibited material is a no-go under HB 4938.
Consider how the lawmakers define “prohibited material,” too. According to the draft language, prohibited material is a form of expression, “that at common law was not protected by adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting laws abridging freedom of speech or the press.” Further, these “prohibited materials” under the bill are defined:
“[As] depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, of sexual acts, that includes any of the following:…vaginal or anal intercourse;…fellatio or cunnilingus;…masturbation;…ejaculation or orgasm;…penetration with sexual devices;…group sex;…bondage, domination, or sadomasochism;…acts involving bodily fluids for sexual arousal;…erotic autonomous sensory meridian response content, moaning, or sensual voice content;…animated, virtual, or sexual activity generated by artificial intelligence;…depictions of characters acting or resembling minors in sexual contextsl;…[and] any other pornographic material.”
Other forms of expression that are considered “prohibited material” include:
“[A] depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, that includes a disconnection between biology and gender by an individual of 1 biological sex imitating, depicting, or representing himself or herself to be of the other biological sex by means of a combination of attire, cosmetology, or prosthetics, or as having a reproductive nature contrary to the individual’s biological sex.”
The only exceptions include “scientific and medical research or instruction” or “peer-reviewed academic content.” Not only does Rep. Schriver attempt to define entire categories of speech as obscene and criminal, but he goes the extra step of attempting to criminalize and written or audiovisual existence of transgender, gender non-conforming, and/or gender diverse people.
He wants to criminalize forms of expression that affirm and contribute to the basic humanity of transgender people by saying that gender affirmation, socialization, and any other material related to the subject is pornographic, while also conflating such material with actual sexually explicit content that is produced for private use by adults and is widely considered legal.
What kind of backward ass thinking is that? Rep. Schriver is pitching a worldview so extreme that it calls for criminalizing protected forms of expression, while also wanting to institute an entire offense for speech that deals with transgender and queer subject matter.
Instead of using a position in the state legislature to accomplish something reasonable and bipartisan, Schriver’s cabal intends to force further harm onto the national conversation against a class of people who are entitled to the same First Amendment rights he proudly utilizes as a member of the rising postliberal Catholic and Catholic integralism movements that feature prominent neo-fascists and (wink) J.D. Vance.
State Sen. Dusty Deevers of Oklahoma is the other high-profile case of a lawmaker wanting to upend the First Amendment in their state to ban pornography. Note that Deevers is an author of “The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel.” In this statement, Sen. Deevers calls for the abolishment of divorce, abortion, non-traditionalist culture, and “evils” like pornography.
Schriver publicly joined Deevers’ fan club in early 2024 when the porn ban in Oklahoma was first put to pen and paper. It hasn’t passed the legislature.
Rep. Schriver quoted a Rolling Stone post on X criticizing Deevers, saying that “abortion is murder, porn is cancer, [and] divorce is a plague.” If bills like HB 4938 are the future of the conservative movement, then the true obscenity isn’t pornography—it’s the authoritarian urge to strip people of their rights under the guise of protecting morality: No one is protected; everyone is a criminal.
Let’s just hope this bill dies in committee and Schriver and his colleagues are reminded of how willfully ignorant they truly are.
Michael McGrady covers the tech and legal sides of the online porn business.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, adult content, dusty deevers, free speech, josh schriver, michigan, oklahoma, porn, public morals, vpns
