The War on Porn Regular Updates about the Assault on The Adult Industry
Related Articles
Rep. Josh Schriver introduced House Bill (HB) 4938, titled the “Anticorruption of Public Morals Act,” earlier this month. He promoted the measure as a “public decency and public safety solution” aimed at restricting what he described as harmful online speech.
Following widespread pushback and viral attention, Schriver announced on Sept. 24 via the social platform X that he would amend the bill to remove provisions targeting virtual private networks (VPNs) and other “circumvention tools” included in the original draft.
“I will not be advancing … [the act] … as is,” Schriver posted. “I am drafting a new version that removes all language regarding VPNs and non-pornographic imagery to ensure this policy only addresses pornography.”
The initial version of HB 4938 explicitly banned the use of circumvention methods such as VPNs and encryption tunneling, effectively criminalizing common privacy and security tools.
Schriver also signaled plans to revise the bill’s definition of “prohibited materials.” The original text broadly applied to any media with sexual themes, even if not pornographic. His proposed changes would narrow that definition, though the final scope remains unclear.
Another unresolved question is whether Schriver will alter language critics have described as discriminatory. The original draft defined prohibited material to include content depicting “a disconnection between biology and gender by an individual of one biological sex imitating, depicting, or representing himself or herself to be of the other biological sex.”
Corey Silverstein, a Michigan-based attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases involving the adult industry, criticized the measure, calling it “outrageous” and arguing that it “has essentially no chance of survival” in the state legislature.
