[cjslep]

You're not shilling, you're just wrong. Its requirement is to be obscene with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person which is a strong safeguard most people want. It prevents revenge porn and the like. Not all porn.

Edit: The other provision requires the sender of obscenity to know the recipient is under 18 - this is worth re-evaluating in the light of two consensual teenagers, but is nowhere near the sky-is-falling everyone-goes-to-prison since it's hard to prove you know recipients of an anonymous message board.

[moron4hire]

Also, while I can't find a definition for obscenity, a later section bars the transmission of it over cable and subscription services. So it would seem that the sort of material that is already being transmitted on Cinemax, HBO, or the Playboy Channel is not what is considered "obscene". I see there are still pornography shops and strip clubs still around, so whatever the definition of "obscene" must be, it must not involve garden variety, hardcore pornography.

[jerkstate]

> Also, while I can't find a definition for obscenity

not even the supreme court can define obscenity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

[nnfy]

Do you believe that "harass" and "abuse" are well defined?

It doesn't bother you that a sizable proportion of mostly harmless messages on Facebook, Twitter, 4chan, etc are suddenly potential felonies? And that they can be used to target innocent individuals by the federal government?

What happens when a legitimate whistleblower becomes a problem, and suddenly an angry twitter rant becomes an excuse for arrest?

[cjslep]

Your questions are all assuming you are already correct. This won't be a productive conversation if you keep trying to start from there when I've already pointed out how you were originally wrong. Additionally, anti-cyberbullying laws which deal with this exact scenario we are discussing (obscenity with intention to harass/abuse) already exist in nearly all US States, so no I am not worried about our social consensus at the federal level.

[forapurpose]

> I've already pointed out how you were originally wrong

I don't see that. The GP accepted your statement, that it requires intent to harass and abuse, and commented on it.

Also, why should the GP accept your analysis? Do you have expertise?

[cjslep]

Rereading it, I can now see your view, thanks. I don't know enough about the legal definitions of "harass" and "abuse", but I suspect it comes down to your personal level of confidence of whether government abuses this narrow bit in the first place, and secondly whether the entire public would just let this quietly slip by in the public courts without demanding some sort of self-correction action (judicial, legislative, or executive). I am not a gambling man, but I think my position on both of these chances are both reasonable and the most probable, with high confidence. (Edit to add: a sibling in this tree says it better, to paraphrase: "laws can be challenged and reinterpreted, it is a mistake to assume they do not")

In case it isn't obvious, I'm not a lawyer. No one should accept my analysis, because I'm a stranger on the internet, or a Turing-Test-succeeding imitation of one. Likewise, I'm not going to accept OP's analysis for the same reasons. But I will participate in a discussion that allows readers to explore alternate ideas and viewpoints, chasing an overly-idealistic goal of inspiring each of us into self-driven personal growth. Because that's a virtue worth striving for no matter which side of the argument you are on.