Overview
Title
To revise sections 552, 1461, and 1462 of title 18, United States Code, and section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1305), and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Stop Comstock Act is a plan to change some old rules about how people in the U.S. talk about or share materials that might be considered rude or about abortions, so that these rules aren't as strict and confusing anymore.
Summary AI
The Stop Comstock Act aims to amend certain sections of the United States Code and the Tariff Act of 1930. It focuses on removing language related to "indecent" or "immoral" materials and abortion from the legal text. Specifically, it revises sections 552, 1461, and 1462 of Title 18, and Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the regulation of obscene materials. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Stop Comstock Act" (H.R. 2029), is designed to revise sections of the United States Code related to the regulation of obscene materials. Additionally, it amends certain sections of the Tariff Act of 1930. The primary aim of the bill is to update and simplify the language concerning the treatment of materials deemed obscene. This involves removing references to indecent or immoral content, redefining the parameters for what is considered obscene, and updating legal references to be more precise.
Summary of Significant Issues
One major issue with this bill is the potential for ambiguity. By removing specific terms like "indecent" and "immoral," the bill may create legal uncertainties around what exactly constitutes "obscene" material. Such ambiguity could lead to inconsistent legal interpretations and enforcement. Additionally, the bill eliminates language concerning "means for procuring abortion," raising ethical and political questions given the sensitive nature of abortion laws in the United States.
Moreover, the bill's legal jargon and complex terminology and amendments might hinder its accessibility to the general public and policymakers who are not legal experts. This lack of clarity could result in misunderstandings about the bill's intentions and its potential impact on censorship and First Amendment rights.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the Stop Comstock Act could reshape the regulations governing obscene materials. By removing specific language and simplifying the definitions, the bill potentially affects what content is permitted, both in commercial and personal spaces. Depending on how "obscene" is interpreted, this could impact free speech and censorship debates significantly.
From the perspective of the wider public, ambiguity in legal definitions could result in unequal application of the law, with some cases being treated differently by law enforcement agencies and courts, depending on their interpretation of "obscene."
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Lawmakers and the judiciary may face challenges due to this bill's revisions. The removal of established terms without providing clear definitions can complicate the enforcement of obscenity laws and create room for judicial activism, where courts may shape the law based on individual interpretations.
For content creators and distributors, the bill could lead to increased uncertainty and risk surrounding the production and dissemination of materials that might be considered borderline "obscene." This could stifle creativity and innovation in industries such as entertainment and media.
Organizations fighting for First Amendment rights might view the bill as both an opportunity to push for broader interpretations of free speech and a challenge, should enforcement turn restrictive. Conversely, groups advocating for stricter moral standards might see this as a chance to push for more stringent control over media content. Overall, the Stop Comstock Act presents both opportunities and challenges across a range of stakeholders and raises important questions about censorship, free speech, and legal clarity.
Issues
The amendments in Section 2 concerning 'obscene materials' are potentially significant as they could lead to legal ambiguities by removing specific terms like 'indecent' and 'immoral', which might lead to varied interpretations of what constitutes 'obscene' material, impacting First Amendment rights and censorship debates.
The removal of language related to 'means for procuring abortion' in Section 552 of Title 18 could spark significant political and ethical debates, considering the sensitive and contentious nature of abortion legislation in the United States.
The bill might create legal confusion by striking specific parts of the existing law without providing clear definitions or alternative language, particularly in sections 1461 and 1462 of Title 18, which could impact law enforcement and judicial processes.
The title of the Act, "Stop Comstock Act," in Section 1, lacks detailed explanation and context, making it unclear what specific issues or historical legislation it addresses, potentially leading to misunderstandings about the bill's intentions and objectives.
The complexity and legal jargon in the amendments to both Title 18 and the Tariff Act of 1930 in Section 2 may render the bill inaccessible to the general public and policymakers who are not legal experts, thereby hindering informed discourse and decision-making.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that this law is titled the “Stop Comstock Act”.
2. Obscene materials Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends existing laws to remove specific language related to indecent and immoral materials, clarifying that only obscene materials are regulated. It updates references and strikes outdated or unnecessary language in the United States Code and the Tariff Act of 1930.