- Advertisement -

TITUSVILLE, FL — A local elected official is wading into one of the nation’s most divisive debates. Dr. Sarah Stoeckel, a Republican Titusville City Council member and college administrator, publicly expressed support this week for a proposed federal bill that could make pornography a crime in the United States.

- Advertisement -

The legislation, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), would update longstanding obscenity laws and set a national standard to criminalize the production and distribution of most pornography online. Known as the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, the bill seeks to eliminate what Lee calls the “legal gray area” that has allowed adult content to flourish unchecked.

Stoeckel endorsed the measure in a public Facebook post, stating: “A new bill introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, could make porn a crime in the United States… I can only hope. There are so many studies and research on how detrimental porn is for society.”

Her statement quickly drew a flurry of comments, ranging from praise to fierce criticism. Some accused her of supporting government overreach and hypocrisy, while others echoed her concerns about morality and social harm. One critic wrote, “Sounds like an attack on Americans’ Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Stoeckel replied: “Quite the opposite actually. Porn users who think they are free are only fooling themselves.” (The Florida House, in fact, passed a resolution in 2018 declaring pornography a public health risk.) Supporters argue porn causes addiction, erodes family values, and contributes to sexual exploitation, so criminalizing it is a necessary moral stance. On the other hand, critics of Stoeckel’s comments have pushed back, noting that adult pornography is legal free expression and questioning why a city councilwoman is concerned with policing Americans’ private media choices. “This would never work and violates personal freedoms,” one Brevard County resident commented, reflecting worries that a ban is both unconstitutional and impractical.

- Advertisement -

Stoeckel, who holds a Ph.D. in Public Administration and serves as Director of Institutional Effectiveness at Eastern Florida State College, has long positioned herself as a civic-minded leader. But her stance on this issue has placed her at the center of a national conversation on censorship, free speech, and modern morality.

The Bill Behind the Controversy

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) on May 8, 2025, seeking to update a 1930s communications law for the internet age. The proposal would establish a uniform federal standard deeming any sexual content that “appeals to the prurient interest” and is intended to arouse, without serious artistic or scientific value, as obscene – effectively outlawing mainstream porn if passed. Lee argues current obscenity definitions are “hazy and unenforceable” and have allowed “extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children”. By broadening obscenity beyond the traditional Miller test’s “community standards” element, the bill would make it easier to prosecute those who produce or distribute adult content across state lines.

- Advertisement -

If enacted, IODA targets porn distributors and websites rather than individual viewers. It removes an existing legal loophole that required prosecutors to prove porn was shared with intent to harass; any transmission of newly-defined obscene material online could be a crime. Sen. Lee and House co-sponsor Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) say this empowers law enforcement to “take down” content and “prosecute peddlers” of pornographic media as criminals.

“Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but [current] legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to reach countless children,” Lee said, calling the bill a needed update “for the internet age”.
It aligns with conservative think tank Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 platform, which explicitly blames porn for “propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and calls for jailing content creators and penalizing tech companies that host porn.

Critics, however, argue the bill is dangerously broad. Free speech advocates say it could criminalize nearly all adult content and violate the First Amendment. The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult entertainment industry, warned that the law would “effectively prohibit distribution of adult material in the U.S.”

The American Reality: Porn Is Big Business

While moral panic surrounding pornography is nothing new, the American public’s relationship with adult content is complex. The rise of platforms like OnlyFans has revolutionized the adult industry, turning thousands of content creators into millionaires and reshaping how porn is consumed.

OnlyFans reports over 2 million content creators and more than 180 million users. Some top earners reportedly bring in over $1 million per month. From influencers to former celebrities, the financial incentive for adult content creation is undeniable — and its consumer base is massive. “Catch me outside” girl also known as Bhad Bhabie made over $50 million on the platform in a single year.

This reality stands in stark contrast to calls for criminalization. Despite frequent public criticism of porn, demand remains high. A recent Gallup poll found that 43% of Americans consider pornography “morally acceptable,” the highest percentage since polling began. Yet the stigma persists.

The push to outlaw porn raises fundamental questions about American values of freedom and the feasibility of such a ban. The United States prides itself on broad free speech rights – and indeed, adult pornographic media (featuring consenting adults) has generally been considered protected expression under the First Amendment, as long as it isn’t deemed “obscene” by courts.

The Miller v. California Supreme Court ruling in 1973 established that only obscene porn (with no serious artistic or social value and offending local community standards) can be censored; in practice, most mainstream pornographic films or images have avoided the “obscene” label and thus remained legal in all 50 states. By contrast, prostitution is broadly illegal across the country, which leads some anti-porn advocates to argue there is a contradiction in our laws. “It’s absurd that prostitution magically becomes legal if you pull out a camera, call it ‘pornography,’ and publish the recording,” said Oklahoma state senator Dusty Deevers, who is pushing a similar porn-ban bill at the state level.

To social conservatives, pornography is essentially “recorded prostitution” – a commercial sex act that, in any other context, would be a crime. They see banning porn as a logical extension of prostitution laws, closing what they view as a loophole that allows sexual exploitation to flourish under the guise of “free speech.” However, civil libertarians and many ordinary Americans bristle at that comparison. They argue that consensual adult porn is fundamentally different from illicit prostitution in terms of transparency, performer agency, and the presence of an audience (which arguably transforms it into expression). Porn performers have legal contracts, pay taxes, and create a media product – conditions that differentiate the work from a seedy street transaction, supporters say. Moreover, banning porn outright may clash with American notions of personal liberty and limited government.

The U.S. has a long history of tolerating moral vices – from alcohol to adult magazines – under the principle that what adults do in private is their own business. Even many who personally dislike pornography concede that government shouldn’t police adults’ consensual sexual media, much as it should not police their sex lives. This libertarian streak poses a political hurdle for anti-porn laws. According to recent polling, only about 28% of Americans favored a total ban on pornography in 2022, though a newer survey in 2024 showed opinion split 42%–42% on the question (with the rest undecided).

That latter poll suggests rising support on the right for a ban – indeed, 60% of Republican voters nationally were in favor – but also confirms the country is deeply divided. In a nation so split, outright prohibition would likely become a flashpoint in the courts and in public discourse. Practically speaking, enforcing a porn ban would be daunting. In the internet era, adult content is ubiquitous and often hosted on overseas servers or shared peer-to-peer. Attempts to curtail porn distribution could face the same challenges as the War on Drugs or anti-prostitution efforts – high demand tending to generate a persistent black market. Critics note that criminalizing prostitution has not eradicated it; instead, it has driven the trade underground and online. Similarly, a federal porn ban might push consumers to offshore sites, VPNs, and the dark web, while domestic producers could either shut down or relocate to friendlier jurisdictions. Law enforcement would be hard-pressed to censor millions of websites and monitor private consumption without massive surveillance and intrusion. “The law doesn’t make clear whether you, the consumer, would go to prison for saving a racy image… one would naturally assume that’s where all this is headed,” wrote VICE in a blunt assessment of Lee’s bill.

In other words, achieving a true porn-free America might require draconian measures that themselves conflict with constitutional privacy rights (the Supreme Court has held that private possession of obscene material at home cannot be punished, per Stanley v. Georgia). Age-old questions about censorship arise as well: Where is the line between artistic erotic material and illegal obscenity? Would classics like Lady Chatterley’s Lover or a racy R-rated movie scene be deemed criminal “smut” under broad new standards? These uncertainties further illustrate the legal minefield a porn ban bill would enter. Nonetheless, supporters of the ban believe enforcement, while difficult, is worthwhile. They point to recent state-level actions as models. Several red states have enacted strict age-verification laws for adult websites, forcing users to present ID to access porn. In Louisiana, such a law caused an 80% drop in traffic to Pornhub as casual viewers were deterred. (Pornhub and similar sites responded by blocking entire states like Utah when age-ID laws came into effect, essentially a self-imposed ban in those jurisdictions.)

And in Utah, which has declared porn a public health crisis, state prosecutors have occasionally gone after producers of extreme obscene content. These efforts indicate that partial crackdowns can have an impact – though they fall short of an absolute prohibition. Whether a sweeping federal ban could work is highly debatable. It would likely face immediate court challenges on First Amendment grounds and fierce opposition from the multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industry. “This bill would remove porn’s First Amendment protections,” the Free Speech Coalition warns, arguing it would throw countless webcam models, filmmakers, and adult performers out of work.

Economically, a ban could wipe out legitimate businesses and platforms that employ tens of thousands (from production crews to software engineers at adult sites). Culturally, it would represent one of the most significant government-imposed moral restrictions in modern U.S. history – a throwback to the pre-1960s era of obscenity censorship.

To put the proposed porn ban in context, here is a comparison of current laws on pornography and prostitution across America:

Is It American to Criminalize Porn?

Stoeckel’s critics raise a pointed question: Is it truly American to make porn a crime? The United States has long valued individual liberty and limited government, ideals often championed by the very conservatives now pushing to ban adult content.

Cody Michael of the Libertarian Party of Brevard County commented on Stoeckel’s post, asking: “But is it the government’s business what anyone does? No, it’s not.” Others drew parallels to failed attempts to eradicate vice through prohibition, comparing porn bans to anti-prostitution laws that have driven sex work underground rather than eliminating it.

Some commenters noted that social media and cable news have arguably done more cultural damage than adult content. One user quipped, “Social media has been proven to be detrimental to society, when do we get to ban that?”

If passed, Sen. Lee’s bill would give the federal government new powers to prosecute porn creators and distributors, particularly those operating across state lines or on major platforms. But enforcing such a law would be a monumental challenge in the digital age, with much adult content hosted internationally or shared peer-to-peer.

Legal experts also predict immediate court challenges. The Supreme Court has previously ruled in Stanley v. Georgia that private possession of obscene material in one’s home cannot be criminalized. Efforts to prosecute producers under a newly broadened obscenity definition would likely meet stiff constitutional resistance.

Dr. Stoeckel’s endorsement of the porn ban encapsulates this tension on a small scale. Her stance, rooted in concern about porn’s “detrimental” impact, resonates with those who feel something must be done about the coarsening of culture. Yet the pushback she’s received also shows that many Americans – even those who may dislike pornography – draw the line at government prohibition. As one nationwide columnist quipped in response to the bill, “Lawmakers can’t just wish away the internet’s erotic megaton – they’ll only drive it deeper underground”. Can a society inundated with on-demand adult content truly put the genie back in the bottle? That is the looming question as this legislation moves from proposal into public discussion.

For now, Sen. Lee’s anti-pornography bill remains just that – a proposal – and it faces significant political hurdles. But its introduction and the robust reactions to it (from Capitol Hill to Titusville City Hall) demonstrate that pornography has re-emerged as a hot-button political issue in 2025. The outcome of this debate could have far-reaching implications: for the adult entertainment industry’s future, for the definition of free speech in the digital era, and for the countless Americans who, whether proudly or privately, are consumers of porn. It is a clash between the impulse to “clean up” society’s online public square and the reality of a free society where one person’s vice is another’s accepted pastime. As the conversation continues, the U.S. will grapple with where to draw the line – balancing the protection of societal values against the preservation of individual freedoms.

- Advertisement -