A Return to Prudishness? Or a Redefinition of Boundaries in a Complex World?

Those who are familiar with our Publisher know well his philosophy regarding a broad understanding of what constitutes free speech, not only in practice, but in art. He has spent decades arguing that the problem is not the act of speech, but the response of those who hear or observe it. He has always argued that morals cannot be legislated, nor should they be imposed by a political party that has already broken every moral code that ever existed.

Recent headlines might suggest a global tightening of perceived moral standards. In early May, a new rule at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival explicitly banned nudity on its highly scrutinized red carpet. Days later, in the United States, federal lawmakers reintroduced the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA), a bill critics warn could drastically curtail online free speech by broadening the definition of obscenity. Do these events signal a world becoming more prude? A closer look, contrasted with other legal developments, suggests a more complex picture – one where context-specific “carefulness” diverges sharply from broad, ideologically driven restrictions.

The Push for a National Obscenity Standard: The IODA Bill

Introduced on May 8 by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill), the IODA aims to create a new federal definition of obscenity for online content. As detailed in an MSNBC Daily analysis, this bill seeks to replace the Supreme Court’s long-standing three-part Miller v. California test. That test requires material to appeal to prurient interest by contemporary community standards, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by state law, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAPS).

The IODA, however, proposes a more subjective standard: content could be deemed obscene if it merely focuses on nudity, sex, or excretion in a way “intended to arouse” and lacks “serious value,” notably discarding “community standards” and the “patently offensive” component. Critics argue this vague language could have a severe chilling effect, sweeping in art, health information, and sex education, and effectively empowering the federal government to police speech based on a narrow set of values. This legislative effort is seen by some as aligned with the policy goals of initiatives like Project 2025, which explicitly calls for the criminalization of pornography. Concerns are high that IODA would trample established First Amendment precedents, such as those hard-won in legal battles by figures like Larry Flynt, and inevitably lead to a Supreme Court fight over established law.

Cannes: Decorum, Safety, or a Sign of the Times?

Across the Atlantic, the 78th Cannes Film Festival also made news by updating its dress policy to explicitly prohibit “nudity on the red carpet, as well as in any other area of the festival.” While the festival stated this merely makes “explicit… certain rules that have long been in effect” and aligns with French law, the timing, amid fashion trends including highly sheer dresses (like Bianca Censori’s notable Grammys appearance), sparked discussion.

The festival’s rationale, however, appears rooted more in event management and decorum than a broad moral crusade. Officials cited the need to ensure the “proper flow of traffic” (also banning voluminous outfits with large trains) and maintain the “institutional framework of the event.” The argument can be made that this is about practical “carefulness.” A high-profile, globally televised event like Cannes has tangible concerns: an overly revealing outfit or a voluminous dress that causes excessive media scrums or physically obstructs the red carpet can quickly become a safety and logistical issue, potentially leading to falls or, in an emergency, hindering movement. The “threat,” here, one might argue, is a direct, physical-world concern for event organizers.

Counter-Currents: Challenging the Inherent Sexualization of the Female Form

Contrast these developments with a recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling. As reported by CBS Minnesota on May 6, 2025, the court determined that a woman exposing her bare breasts in public does not inherently qualify as “lewd” under the current state statute. The ruling emphasized that to be guilty of indecent exposure, there must be an additional showing of “conduct of a sexual nature.”

Significantly, a concurring opinion by Justice Sarah Hennesy directly addressed the potential for a double standard, stating that interpreting “private parts” to include female but not male breasts “would lead to the continued stigmatization of female breasts as inherently sexual and reinforce the sexual objectification of women,” noting such ideas are “rooted in stereotypes.” This legal reasoning pushes against an automatically “prude” or sexualized interpretation of the female body.

This Minnesota decision echoes a long-standing legal precedent in New York City, where, since a 1992 court ruling (People v. Santorelli), women have legally been allowed to be topless in public wherever men can be. Decades of this policy in a major metropolis have not reportedly led to a substantial increase in related sex crimes, suggesting that fears of societal decay often accompanying such debates may not always materialize.

\Prudishness, Practicality, or Principled Stands?

So, is the world becoming more prude? Perhaps not universally. Instead, we might be seeing distinct phenomena:

• On one hand, specific events like Cannes are becoming “more careful,” implementing rules rooted in practical concerns for safety, logistics, and maintaining a particular standard of decorum in a highly controlled environment. These rules, while restrictive, are context-specific.
• On the other hand, legislative proposals like the IODA appear to stem from a different impetus. Critics argue they are not responding to a “real” or “hard” provable threat but are driven by broader ideological agendas and what some describe as “hyperbole” and “anecdotal evidence.” The concern here is that the “punishment”—a significant infringement on First Amendment rights for the entire public—is vastly disproportionate to, and disconnected from, any substantiated harm caused by the speech itself. As has been argued, the IODA “has absolutely no business becoming law because the free speech rights it tramples do absolutely nothing to affect the alleged ‘sin’.”

The Minnesota and New York City examples further complicate a simple narrative of increasing prudishness, showcasing legal challenges to the automatic sexualization of the female body and upholding principles of equality.

Ultimately, the question may not be whether the world is becoming more prude, but rather a constant vigilance is required to distinguish between reasonable, context-specific regulations and overreaching attempts to legislate morality that threaten fundamental freedoms. Each instance demands scrutiny of its motives, its scope, and its true impact on both safety and liberty.