Protection of Minors from Pornography and Obscenities Act

The American Council supports S0919, the Protection of Minors from Pornography and Obscenities Act, and urges every South Carolina legislator to vote yes. The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2026, where it currently awaits action. It makes targeted amendments to two sections of existing law: the definitions section (§ 16-15-375) and the affirmative-defense provisions of § 16-15-385. Critically, the definitions amended by Section 2 do not apply only to the dissemination offense. The bill's own text states that those definitions apply to § 16-15-385 (disseminating or exhibiting harmful material or performances), § 16-15-387 (employing a person under eighteen to appear in a state of sexually explicit nudity in a public place), § 16-15-395 (first degree sexual exploitation of a minor), § 16-15-405 (second degree sexual exploitation of a minor), § 16-15-410 (third degree sexual exploitation of a minor), § 16-15-412 (morphed image of an identifiable minor), § 16-15-415 (promoting prostitution of a minor), and § 16-15-425 (participating in prostitution of a minor). Every change to the definitions described below carries into all of those offenses. Each change is described in the order it appears in the bill.

Removing the 'taken as a whole' standard from the threshold definition. Under current law, material is 'harmful to minors' only if it meets the three-part test when evaluated as a whole. S0919 strikes the phrase 'taken as a whole' from the opening clause of the definition and adds 'or portion of any material or performance,' so that the definition now applies to 'any material or performance, or portion of any material or performance' that depicts sexually explicit nudity, sexual activity, or contains profane language and has the three listed characteristics. The same 'or any portion of the material or performance' language is added to each of the three prongs individually, as described below.

Adding profane language as a covered category of content. The bill adds 'or contains profane language' alongside 'depicts sexually explicit nudity' and 'sexual activity' in the threshold trigger for the harmful-to-minors definition. The same addition appears in the patent-offensiveness prong (subpart b), which now reads that 'the depiction of sexually explicit nudity, sexual activity, or use of profane language in the material or performance, or any portion of the material or performance, is patently offensive.' A new definition (§ 16-15-375(4)) defines 'profane language' as 'language or gestures communicated in any form or manner that, in context, depict or describe sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards.' The Council reads 'language or gestures communicated in any form or manner' as broad in scope; readers should be aware that 'in context' and the 'patently offensive' standard tied to contemporary community standards are the operative limits the bill places on this new category.

Changes to the prurient-interest prong (subpart a). The bill strikes the word 'predominant' from the phrase 'predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest,' so that any tendency -- not merely a predominant one -- to appeal to a prurient interest of minors in sex or the obscene satisfies this prong. The bill also adds 'or the obscene' after 'sex' as an additional object of prurient appeal. Both changes apply to the material or performance 'or any portion of the material or performance.'

Changes to the serious-value prong (subpart c). The bill strikes 'taken as a whole' from subpart (c) and replaces it with 'or any portion of the material or performance,' so that a portion lacking serious value can satisfy this prong. The bill also strikes 'literary, artistic, political, or' from the list of recognized value types, leaving 'serious scientific value for minors' as the sole remaining exception. As drafted, this means that literary, artistic, and political value -- categories long recognized in First Amendment jurisprudence as grounds for redeeming otherwise objectionable material -- would no longer qualify under this prong. We view the narrowing of recognized value to scientific value alone as one of the bill's most consequential provisions, and we support it as a clarification of the General Assembly's intent that explicit material cannot be defended as having artistic or literary merit for children.

Expanding the definition of 'material' to include words and gestures, and removing the written-word exclusion. The bill adds 'words' and 'gestures' to the enumerated list in the definition of 'material.' It also strikes 'visual' as a qualifier before 'depictions or representations,' broadening coverage beyond visual content. It also strikes the existing exclusion for 'material consisting entirely of written words,' so that written-word-only content is no longer categorically exempt from the definition. Together, these three changes mean that purely verbal or written content -- including text-only books -- can now constitute 'material' for purposes of all eight statutes that rely on these definitions.

Renumbering. To accommodate the new 'profane language' definition inserted as § 16-15-375(4), the bill renumbers the former definitions at subsections (4) through (8) to subsections (5) through (9). No substantive changes are made to those definitions.

Narrowing the affirmative defense for schools, churches, government agencies, medical clinics, and hospitals. Under current law, a defendant who is a school, church, museum, public, school, college, or university library, government agency, medical clinic, or hospital carrying out a legitimate function may assert an affirmative defense. S0919 makes three changes to this defense. First, it strikes 'museum, public, school, college, or university library' entirely from the list of eligible entities, so libraries of those types may no longer assert this defense. Second, it adds a sentence strictly limiting what qualifies as a 'legitimate function or duty' for the remaining entities (school, church, government agency, medical clinic, and hospital): that function is 'strictly limited to the age-appropriate teaching of a sex education program or human biology curriculum for which express written consent from the minor's parent or legal guardian has been obtained in advance.' Third, the bill expressly states that this legitimate function 'excludes school and classroom libraries.' The Council reads this to mean that even a school that qualifies as a defendant cannot rely on a school or classroom library as the site of the protected activity. The practical effect is that the affirmative defense for schools and similar entities now requires advance, express, written parental or guardian consent and is limited to the specific curriculum contexts named.

Preservation of pending actions. Section 4 provides that the amendments and any repeals do not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded on prior law, and that prior law remains in effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date.

Severability. Section 5 contains a standard severability clause: if any part of the act is held unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder is unaffected, and the General Assembly declares it would have passed each part independently.

Effective date. The act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

The American Council believes children deserve consistent, enforceable protection from obscene and pornographic material regardless of where it appears within a larger work or what institutional label is placed on the venue distributing it. S0919 addresses real gaps that have been exploited. We ask every South Carolina legislator to vote yes.