Provide for civil actions for conduct relating to obscene material, child sexual abuse material, and child sexual exploitation devices

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a lawsuit bill. It creates new rights to sue, and new state enforcement powers, over sexual material involving children and over obscene material posted online.

• Section 1 bars intentionally creating, posting, or facilitating access to obscene material or child sexual abuse material online.
• Section 1 lets people depicted in or exposed to that content sue for damages, fees, and injunctions.
• Section 1 bars contributory negligence, blocks fault allocation under Chapter 25, and imposes joint and several liability.
• Section 2 shields judges, attorneys, and their staff who view the material in good faith.
• Section 3 bans knowingly buying, selling, delivering, or possessing child sexual exploitation devices or images.
• Section 3 sets a civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation, sought by the Attorney General or county attorneys.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

The title matches the operative sections closely. The gaps are narrower than the title's broad wording suggests.

• The title's "civil actions" matches Section 1(3) and Section 3(3), which create two new private lawsuits.
• The title's "civil penalty" matches only Section 3's $10,000 penalty; Section 1 carries no penalty.
• The title's "county attorneys" matches Section 3 only; Section 1 gives enforcement power to the Attorney General alone.
• The title promises immunity for "courts"; Section 2 actually covers judges, attorneys, and their agents or employees.
• Internet utility immunity is real but partial: Section 1(5) protects pass-through access, not creation or development.
• The title's "define terms" matches, though key definitions are borrowed from sections 28-1802, 28-807, and 87-1002.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

Two of the candidate verses bear honestly here, and they bear on different halves of the bill. Job 31:11 speaks to the gravity the bill assumes without arguing for it: "For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges." Psalms 10:18 speaks to why the bill puts a remedy in the hands of the person depicted rather than only the state: "To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress." What these verses do not settle is nearly everything the bill actually decides. They do not say whether the remedy belongs in a civil suit or a criminal prosecution, who counts as the wrongdoer when a website merely carries what someone else made, how far up the chain from creator to conduit liability should run, what "obscene" means for adult material that adults may lawfully view, whether an adult who sought the material out may recover, or what a violation is worth in dollars. Scripture here supplies the seriousness of the wrong and the duty to give the vulnerable a hearing; it does not supply the line-drawing, and a reader who agrees with both verses may still disagree with every operative choice in this bill.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is not about the material itself but about whether broad civil liability is the right tool against it.

• For: Section 1(8) allows relief with no criminal conviction, so victims need not wait for a prosecutor.
• For: Section 1(6) reaches violators whether or not they count as publishers or distributors elsewhere in law.
• For: Section 3(3) gives a child whose likeness is copied onto a doll a direct claim.
• Against: Section 1(2)(a) reaches anyone who "allows or facilitates access," language broad enough to cover ordinary site operators.
• Against: "Describes or promotes child sexual abuse material" is not defined and could reach words rather than images.
• Against: Section 1(3)(a) lets anyone merely "exposed" to obscene content sue, and joint liability magnifies each defendant's exposure.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading covers only the bill's own words; much is left to other statutes and to courts.

• The bill contains no appropriation and no stated cost for Attorney General or county attorney enforcement.
• "Child sexual abuse material," "obscene," and "Internet utility" are defined elsewhere and not reproduced in this text.
• "Exposed to," "facilitate access," and "publicly available Internet website" are used but never defined.
• Section 1(7) bars sovereign immunity as a defense without saying which public bodies that reaches.
• No effective date, statute of limitations, or cap on damages appears anywhere in the text.
• Section 3(4)(c) sends penalties to the State Treasurer under Article VII, section 5, naming no fund.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (7)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Tanya Storer [District 43] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB978.