‘Obscene performances' public funding ban moves forward
A bill that left the Senate with near-universal support picked up a 'barnacle in committee,' as one House Democrat put it last week, leaving the House on a 71-20 vote Monday.
The House additions widen the scope of the underlying bill beyond an effort to replace a criminal term throughout Indiana code to include a focus on obscene performances.
As originally written, Senate Bill 326 would have replaced 'child pornography' with 'child sex abuse material,' acknowledging that children are being sexually abused in such images. But a House committee added a new provision: barring government entities from using public money to fund, organize or host 'obscene performances.'
'Obscene performance' ban added to child abuse bill, official misconduct expungements weighed
A House floor amendment, which moved largely along party lines, also added a method of enforcement by allowing people to sue Indiana entities for alleged incidents.
'Language shapes the way we understand and confront these issues and the term child pornography is not only inaccurate, it minimizes the horror of the crimes committed. Pornography implies a level of consent and children cannot consent,' said House sponsor Rep. Andrew Ireland. '… we're taking an important step to save our Hoosier children.'
The Indianapolis Republican said the language regarding obscene performances would ensure 'that public funds are never used to support the exploitation of children.'
Defining something as obscene has to meet a high bar, known as the 'Miller Test.' That work must be based on an average person's reaction and consider the entire work, not just an isolated portion.
But critics maintained that such performances aren't happening, noting there are already penalties regardless of someone's government affiliation.
'More and more this General Assembly is taking itself to an alternate reality where it legislates against problems that don't exist,' said Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington. 'We create a strawman and then we knock it down and 'Look at us! We really solved that problem!'
'The problem never existed. But it appeals to somebody out there, so we do it now.'
Ireland didn't cite specific instances of obscene performances using taxpayer dollars on Monday nor in his testimony last week when he introduced the penalty language.
It also doesn't limit such legal action to only Indiana residents, meaning that, according to Pierce, 'any person in the universe can sue your local government when they're offended by somebody and try to make an argument that it's obscene.'
Pierce was one of the committee members to advance the bill, noting the high bar to meet the state's obscenity standard, which he dubbed a 'barnacle' on the House floor last week. In addition to the Miller test, a litigant would generally need to prove they have been harmed by obscene performances — a barrier meant to tamp down on frivolous lawsuits.
But Pierce said the language eviscerates that and says 'we don't care if they're harmed or not. We don't care if they have a direct injury.'
Municipalities may still need to spend their dollars defending themselves from such accusations, which could include plays, poetry and drag shows.
'Keep in mind, anybody involved in this supposed obscene performance that local government might be funding can already be arrested and imprisoned under our current (law),' Pierce continued. 'I would think the fear of going to prison would keep local officials from going into the smut-peddling business.'
Ireland agreed with Pierce that such obscene performances 'have never occurred and I hope never occur … in part, thanks to this bill.'
'This is nothing new under the sun,' concluded Ireland.
The final vote tally split both parties, though only Ireland and Pierce spoke on the measure. It now goes to the Senate, which must vote to accept or reject the House amendments before the bill can advance.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Senate confirms Trump's pick to oversee higher ed, a man tied to for-profit colleges
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to oversee higher education policy, a man with deep ties to the for-profit college industry, by a 50-to-45 vote on August 1. Senate Majority John Thune filed cloture on Kent's nomination earlier in the week. And the education committee had already advanced Kent on a 12-11 vote without a hearing in late May. The undersecretary at the Department of Education oversees billions in federal financial aid and is charged with ensuring America's colleges provide a quality education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon had previously told USA TODAY that Kent is a 'natural leader' whose experience and concern for students 'make him the ideal selection for under secretary of education." He had won the support of several prominent university trade groups who are opposed to Trump's attacks on universities, but said they supported Kent's nomination. His confirmation comes as the Trump administration seeks to reshape higher education and has launched numerous investigations into high profile universities. Kent had already been working at the agency on the administration's initiatives like K-12 school choice. But prior to working in the government, Kent had a long history working for or close to for-profit colleges. From 2008 to the end of 2015, Kent worked for Education Affiliates, a for-profit college company. When he left, he was a vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs. In 2015, the Department of Justice announced the company had agreed to a $13 million settlement to settle accusations it had gamed the federal financial aid system. The company told USA TODAY Kent was not involved in the settlement or the allegations of fraud. Critics, including student advocacy groups and teacher unions, had called on the Senate education committee to put Kent through a public hearing to answer questions about his time working for the company. And one of the original whistleblowers tied to that case, Dorothy Thomas, expressed concern about someone from the company's leadership holding the under secretary position. Kent had also worked for Career Education Colleges and Universities, a for-profit college trade group. He developed a reputation for deep policy knowledge while speaking against regulations geared toward the for-profit college industry. That group's CEO, Jason Altmire, said Kent was not driven by partisan politics and would bring an unbiased view to the under secretary position. He then went to work for Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration as a deputy secretary of education. Youngkin, in a prepared statement, said Kent improved how Virginia manages colleges and made them more accountable to students and families through increased transparency. Chair of the Virginia Senate's education committee, Democrat Ghazala Hashmi, told USA TODAY Kent had tried to destabilize accreditation in the state and he was aligned with efforts to dismantle consumer protections. In a departing message to the commonwealth, Kent said he was proud of reducing costs while pushing for free speech and accountability at Virginia's colleges. Chris Quintana is an investigative reporter at USA TODAY. He can be reached at cquintana@ or via Signal at 202-308-9021. He is on X at @CQuintanaDC
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
No nominees deal
The Senate will try to break an impasse Friday to advance three spending bills in hopes of showing progress after days of discord. A separate holdup over presidential nominations, meanwhile, could come down to direct talks between Democrats and the White House. A patchwork of objections from senators on both sides of the aisle have held up the spending legislation for days and foiled a plan for what some had hoped would be a four-bill package. But members expressed new optimism Friday that a second, more limited attempt could move forward. It's one of two pieces of major business Republican leaders are hoping to wrap up before the Senate starts its traditional summer recess. In addition to the spending bills — where they are keen to show some progress ahead of the Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline — they also want to confirm a broad tranche of President Donald Trump's nominees. The nominee conversations appear more dicey, senators said, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Friday that he has put Trump officials 'into conversation directly' with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's team. Top White House staffers were also in the Capitol on Thursday night after Thune met with Trump at the White House. 'This is how this is ultimately going to get resolved,' Thune said. Meanwhile, GOP senators said leaders are running traps on a possible deal that would advance the smaller package of spending bills. Under the pending proposal, leaders would seek unanimous consent to tie together the fiscal 2026 spending bills funding the Veterans Affairs and Agriculture departments, as well as military construction projects and the FDA. A third spending bill, funding Congress itself, could be voted on separately. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins said Friday morning she expects a unanimous consent request on some constellation of those three bills. The Maine Republican is eager to show progress on bipartisan spending bills before the Senate leaves for its lengthy August recess. Upon their return, members will have only a handful of session days to make further progress ahead of the shutdown deadline. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) has made clear he will object to including Legislative Branch funding in the package and wants the chance to vote against the $7.1 billion bill. It's the smallest of the 12 annual appropriations bills, but Kennedy maintains it still costs too much. 'They agreed to my proposal,' he told reporters Friday. 'They're going to have one vote on [Military Construction–VA] and [Agriculture-FDA] together and separate vote on [Legislative Branch] so I can vote no. Then they'll marry them up later if all three pass, as they probably will.' Coming to a nominations deal could be much trickier, given Trump's determination to get all of his 150-plus pending nominees confirmed quickly. Trump on Thursday said on Truth Social that the Senate 'must stay in Session, taking no recess' until all of the nominees are confirmed. Even if senators stay in Washington, that goal will be all but impossible to meet absent Democratic cooperation. Democrats under Schumer are exploring whether to quickly confirm a smaller subset of nominees in exchange for other concessions, such as the release of government funding they claim has been illegally 'impounded' by the Trump administration. Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
44 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty in tariffs as he pushes start date back to Aug. 7
WASHINGTON — For weeks, President Donald Trump was promising the world economy would change on Friday with his new tariffs in place. It was an ironclad deadline, administration officials assured the public. But when Trump signed the order Thursday night imposing new tariffs, the start date of the punishing import taxes was pushed back seven days so the tariff schedule could be updated. The change in tariffs on 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands was potentially welcome news to countries that had not yet reached a deal with the U.S. It also injected a new dose of uncertainty for consumers and businesses still wondering what's going to happen and when. Trump told NBC News in a Thursday night interview the tariffs process was going 'very well, very smooth.' But even as the Republican president insisted these new rates would stay in place, he added: 'It doesn't mean that somebody doesn't come along in four weeks and say we can make some kind of a deal.' Trump has promised that his tax increases on the nearly $3 trillion in goods imported to the United States will usher in newfound wealth, launch a cavalcade of new factory jobs, reduce the budget deficits and, simply, get other countries to treat America with more respect. The vast tariffs risk jeopardizing America's global standing as allies feel forced into unfriendly deals. As taxes on the raw materials used by U.S. factories and basic goods, the tariffs also threaten to create new inflationary pressures and hamper economic growth — concerns the Trump White House has dismissed. As the clock ticked toward Trump's self-imposed deadline, few things seemed to be settled other than the president's determination to levy the taxes he has talked about for decades. The very legality of the tariffs remains an open question as a U.S. appeals court on Thursday heard arguments on whether Trump had exceeded his authority by declaring an 'emergency' under a 1977 law to charge the tariffs, allowing him to avoid congressional approval. Trump was ebullient as much of the world awaited what he would do. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' he said Thursday morning on Truth Social. Others saw a policy carelessly constructed by the U.S. president, one that could impose harms gradually over time that would erode America's power and prosperity. 'The only things we'll know for sure on Friday morning are that growth-sapping U.S. import taxes will be historically high and complex, and that, because these deals are so vague and unfinished, policy uncertainty will remain very elevated,' said Scott Lincicome, a vice president of economics at the Cato Institute. 'The rest is very much TBD.' Trump initially imposed the Friday deadline after his previous 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April resulted in a stock market panic. His unusually high tariff rates announced then led to recession fears, prompting Trump to impose a 90-day negotiating period. When he was unable to create enough trade deals with other countries, he extended the timeline and sent out letters to world leaders that simply listed rates, prompting a slew of hasty agreements. Swiss imports will now be taxed at a higher rate, 39%, than the 31% Trump threatened in April, while Liechtenstein saw its rate slashed from 37% to 15%. Countries not listed in the Thursday night order would be charged a baseline 10% tariff. Trump negotiated trade frameworks over the past few weeks with the EU, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines — allowing the president to claim victories as other nations sought to limit his threat of charging even higher tariff rates. He said Thursday there were agreements with other countries, but he declined to name them. Asked on Friday if countries were happy with the rates set by Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said: 'A lot of them are.' The EU was awaiting a written agreement on its 15% tariff deal. Switzerland and Norway were among the dozens of countries that did not know what their tariff rate would be, while Trump agreed after a Thursday morning phone call to keep Mexico's tariffs at 25% for a 90-day negotiating period. The president separately on Thursday amended an order to raise certain tariffs on Canada to 35%. European leaders face blowback for seeming to cave to Trump, even as they insist that this is merely the start of talks and stress the importance of maintaining America's support of Ukraine's fight against Russia. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already indicated that his country can no longer rely on the U.S. as an ally, and Trump declined to talk to him on Thursday. India, with its 25% tariff announced Wednesday by Trump, may no longer benefit as much from efforts to pivot manufacturing out of China. While the Trump administration has sought to challenge China's manufacturing dominance, it is separately in extended trade talks with that country, which faces a 30% tariff and is charging a 10% retaliatory rate on the U.S. Major companies came into the week warning that tariffs would begin to squeeze them financially. Ford Motor Co. said it anticipated a net $2 billion hit to earnings this year from tariffs. French skincare company Yon-Ka is warning of job freezes, scaled-back investment and rising prices. Federal judges sounded skeptical Thursday about Trump's use of a 1977 law to declare the long-standing U.S. trade deficit a national emergency that justifies tariffs on almost every country. 'You're asking for an unbounded authority,' Judge Todd Hughes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told a Justice Department lawyer representing the administration. The judges didn't immediately rule, and the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court eventually. The Trump White House has pointed to the increase in federal revenues as a sign that the tariffs will reduce the budget deficit, with $127 billion in customs and duties collected so far this year — about $70 billion more than last year. There are not yet signs that tariffs will lead to more domestic manufacturing jobs, and Friday's employment report showed the U.S. economy now has 37,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than it did in April. On Thursday, one crucial measure of inflation, known as the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, showed that prices have climbed 2.6% over the 12 months that ended in June, a sign that inflation may be accelerating as the tariffs flow through the economy. The prospect of higher inflation from the tariffs has caused the Federal Reserve to hold off on additional cuts to its benchmark rates, a point of frustration for Trump, who on Truth Social, called Fed Chair Jerome Powell a 'TOTAL LOSER.' But before Trump's tariffs, Powell seemed to suggest that the tariffs had put the U.S. economy and much of the world into a state of unknowns. 'There are many uncertainties left to resolve,' Powell told reporters Wednesday. 'So, yes, we are learning more and more. It doesn't feel like we're very close to the end of that process. And that's not for us to judge, but it does — it feels like there's much more to come.' Boak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Paul Wiseman contributed to this report.
