SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Illinois State Rep. Barbara Wheeler is sponsoring two pieces of anti-porn legislation in the state, each of which resembles similar measures previously debated or passed in other states.
One of the measures, resolution HR0727, declares porn to be an “epidemic that is harming the citizens of Illinois and the country as a whole,” and contains a great deal of verbiage which is reminiscent of similar resolutions passed in Utah and a handful of other states.
“The pervasive damage caused by pornography is beyond the scope of any one individual to address,” the introduction to the resolution states. “Any efforts to prevent pornography exposure and addiction, educate individuals and families concerning its harms, and develop recovery programs must be addressed systemically in ways that hold broader influences accountable in order to counter the sexually toxic environment it perpetuates.”
The resolution also asserts pornography “treats women as objects and commodities for the viewer’s use, teaching girls that they are objects to be used and teaching boys that this is acceptable behavior.”
“Pornography normalizes violence and abuse of women and children and treats them as objects,” the resolution continues, “and…. equates torment and violence against women and children with pleasure, increasing the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography.”
“Pornography is not a victimless crime,” Wheeler said in promoting the resolution. “That resolution is to educate people who passively participate in porn about the people on the other side of the screen and make them aware of what the pornography industry is about.”
Wheeler also described the resolution as the first step toward passing another bill she’s sponsoring, House Bill 5039, or the “Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act.”
“If you’re participating in some type of pornography, you could also be participating in the coercion and extortion of the victims of human trafficking,” Wheeler said. “There’s a definite connection and link to human trafficking.”
As with other iterations of the legislation which has been pushed under the title of the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act,” Wheeler’s bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale, lease and/or distribution in Illinois of any “product that makes content accessible on the Internet” unless the product “contains digital blocking capability that renders any obscene material…. inaccessible.”
The bill would also require the mandated blocking/filtration mechanism to prohibit such devices from “accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution.”
As with the similar bills which have been debated (but not yet successfully passed) in other states, Wheeler’s version of the Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act allows for deactivation of the “blocking capability” on devices upon request by the consumer – provided that the consumer presents identification proving they’re over 18 years of age and pays a “one-time $20 digital access fee.”
Fees collected to unblock internet-capable devices would be remitted to the Illinois Department of Revenue, which would then split the funds, depositing 60% into a “Specialized Services for Survivors of Human Trafficking Fund,” with the remaining 40% being deposited into an “Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Fund.”
While the bill is similar to legislation under consideration in other states, attorney Larry Walters told YNOT “each of the bills approaches the issue of content blocking somewhat differently.”
“The Illinois bill imposes an obligation to block all ‘obscene’ material,” Walters noted. “It is true that obscenity is not constitutionally protected. The obvious problem with this concept is that no product manufacturer knows, in advance, what material might be deemed obscene by some judge or jury somewhere in the country, applying some variant of community standards. Therefore, the risk of self-censorship increases dramatically, resulting in a chilling effect on protected speech. Of course, that’s the point – to drive erotic content off the internet. However, that effort also violates the First Amendment.”
Another aspect of the Illinois bill which could prove tricky in applying and enforcing it, should it ever become law in the state, is its handling of “revenge porn.”
“The bill also imposes an obligation to make all ‘revenge pornography’ inaccessible, without defining what constitutes revenge pornography,” Walters said. “That can be particularly problematic, since at least one court has recently held that such a prohibition is overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment.”
Ultimately, the vague, broad language of proposals like the Illinois Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Act may be by design, part of an effort to equate speech protected by the First Amendment with illegal acts which enjoy no such protection, Walters said.
“All of these similar bills share a common goal, to conflate the concepts of protected speech with illegal activity such as obscenity, prostitution, and human trafficking,” Walters opined. “By doing so, manufacturers of internet accessible products will be forced to err on the side of caution, and block sexually explicit media based on fears of potentially violating the law.”
