Are we about to see Twitter (or “X”) pulled from Oklahoma? A new Senate Bill introduced by a Republican politician is so strict on distributing “unlawful” material that it might just force Twitter to close up shop in the state—or significantly restrict the kind of content available on the site.
This bill follows a recent North Carolina law that significantly impacted access to adult websites across the state. But Oklahoma’s new bill could be even further reaching than North Carolina’s controversial legislation. Here’s what you need to know about Oklahoma’s bill, and whether it could change the way citizens access Twitter.
What is Oklahoma’s S.B. 1976?
Set to be introduced on February 5, 2024, Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 1976 significantly emboldens the state’s restrictions on accessing and distributing material with sexual content. The law creates a new category, “unlawful pornography,” defined as “any visual depiction or individual image,” “play,” or “performance” portraying a wide range of sexually explicit acts.
These include “sexual intercourse which is normal or perverted,” “anal sodomy,” “sadomasochistic abuse,” “physical restraint such as binding or fettering in the context of sexual conduct,” oral sex, and the “lewd exhibition of the uncovered genitals, buttocks, or, if such person is female, the breast, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.”
Under the bill, Oklahoma would ban the distribution of virtually any material that displays explicit sexual content if it lacks “serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value.” Additionally, Oklahoma would empower any citizen to open a lawsuit against an individual who “produces or distributes unlawful pornography” and/or “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the production or distribution of unlawful pornography.”
“It appears to make viewing any sexually explicit or pornographic material illegal,” Sex Workers Outreach Project, a sex workers’ aid and advocacy organization, tweeted.
So, does Oklahoma’s new bill ban viewing porn?
S.B. 1976 would certainly make it illegal for any Oklahoma resident to distribute “unlawful pornography,” unless the participants in question are married and sending each other sexts. But the addition of the word “view” to the bill has left much room for interpretation.
“It shall be unlawful for any person to buy, procure, view, or possess child pornography or obscene materials or to distribute any unlawful pornography that lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value,” the bill reads. “Such person shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than 20 years or a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
So, does the bill only make it unlawful to view “child pornography or obscene materials,” while banning the distribution of unlawful pornography? Or would it also make it illegal to “view” unlawful pornography? This has resulted in some Twitter users claiming the bill is a ban on viewing porn itself—whereas it seems the bill simply bans the distribution of “unlawful pornography.”
However, the bill explicitly bans viewing “obscene materials,” and its definition of those materials is broad and very much open to interpretation, with familiar language about materials that are offensive to the “average person” and have a “prurient interest” in sex. Not only that, but language in the bill outright states that any of the specific items it deems “unlawful pornography” also fit that definition of “obscene material.”
Regardless, the legislation is a major act in anti-porn censorship, one with ripple effects sure to impact the entire state’s population, much in the way North Carolina’s law already has. For one, the bill makes it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly “photograph, act in, pose for, model for, print, sell,” and “offer to publish” any material deemed “unlawful pornography”—including video games.
Violating this section would result in a county jail imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of no less than $2,000, or some mixture of both a fine and jail time. In other words, S.B. 1976 would threaten porn viewers, adult illustrators, sex workers creating adult content for OnlyFans, voice actors starring in lewd content, and even brick-and-mortar bookstores that offer material deemed to be “unlawfully” pornographic in nature.
If the bill passes, and if it goes into effect on November 1 as outlined, it could have a major chilling effect on free speech in Oklahoma.
Here’s how Oklahoma’s bill could ban Twitter
If Oklahoma’s bill passes, its impact would be tremendous. Distributing porn would become illegal in the state. Material depicting sexual content between queer and trans individuals could be outlawed from bookstores because of the legal risk attached. It seems likely that Oklahoma Republicans would hunt down queer books and pull them from store shelves under such a law, given even brief depictions of queer sex in Gender Queer resulted in claims of the work being “pornographic” in nature. After all, in Virginia, conservatives already actively tried to ban Gender Queer from sale for this exact reason, while also targeting Sarah J. Maas’ YA fantasy work for its age-appropriate depictions of sex.
Not to mention, any site that hosts adult content—from PornHub to itch.io—would likely find itself under the gun if this Oklahoma bill passes. Certainly, Section 230 deems that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” But this law targets the distribution of material, not simply its publication, meaning Oklahoma’s bill would embolden citizens (or even the government) to stress test Section 230’s ambiguities by targeting sites deemed to be “distributing” material that falls under “unlawful pornography.”
This could pave the way for PornHub pulling out of Oklahoma, or a site like itch.io significantly restricting adult material in Oklahoma, given the plethora of adult content (and 18+ queer material!) available on the site. In the worst case scenario, it could also open the door to far more explicit bans on adult content in Oklahoma and other states.
This is exactly how Twitter could be impacted by Oklahoma’s S.B. 1976. A Twitter user could face significant legal risk just for retweeting adult material on Twitter. The Oklahoma state government could allege that Twitter knowingly allowed the distribution of “unlawful pornography” on the site. And theoretically, Oklahoma citizens could try to take Twitter to court in a civil suit, seeking damages. While it’s unlikely that Twitter would outright pull out of Oklahoma, the site could take multiple steps to try to find itself in the state’s good graces. This could include further censorship of sex workers and adult content creators on the site, if not an outright ban on adult content, or vastly limiting Oklahoma residents’ access to Twitter under “unlawful pornography” concerns.
Granted, S.B. 1976 is only in its early stages. But we’ve seen a wide assortment of anti-trans copycat bills pop up across state legislatures in 2024 and 2023, and we’re likely to see similar restrictions on queer expression, free speech, and sex workers’ rights like Oklahoma’s “unlawful pornography” bill. Without proper mobilization and protest against this kind of legislature, we might just end up with another North Carolina situation on our hands—resulting in the censorship of one of the largest furry websites in the world.
(feature image: Mikhail Seleznev/Getty Images)
