CRIM CD-OBSCENITY CIVIL ACTION
HB3736 amends Section 11-20 of the Illinois Criminal Code, which governs obscenity, to create a new civil remedy for people harmed by the unlawful sale, distribution, promotion, or exhibition of obscene material. Under the bill, an injured person could sue the individual or entity responsible for the violation and seek compensatory damages for actual losses, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief to stop further violations. The bill also sets a five-year limitations period running from discovery of the violation or harm, and allows venue in the defendant’s county, the county where the conduct occurred, or the plaintiff’s county if applicable.
The measure further caps damages at $10 million per count, with each separate unlawful instance treated as a separate count. It does not change the underlying criminal definition of obscenity, but it adds a private enforcement mechanism on top of the existing criminal prohibition. The bill would therefore expand potential liability for individuals and businesses involved in the sale, promotion, or exhibition of material found to be obscene under Illinois law.
HB3736 would amend 720 ILCS 5/11-20 by adding subsection (b-1), creating a civil cause of action tied to obscenity violations. This would affect publishers, distributors, performers, exhibitors, retailers, and other entities that may be accused of unlawfully handling obscene material, while also giving harmed individuals a new avenue for recovery beyond criminal prosecution. The bill would expose defendants to compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and court-ordered injunctions, and would establish venue and limitations rules specific to these claims.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to strengthen enforcement against obscenity by empowering private plaintiffs, which suggests a policy approach likely to be viewed favorably by supporters of stricter obscenity regulation. At the same time, the absence of discussion means the public or legislative sentiment cannot be determined from the available record.
The main likely point of contention is the creation of a broad private right of action for obscenity violations, especially because the bill allows punitive damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and a high per-count damages cap of up to $10 million. Critics could view this as inviting litigation, increasing exposure for speech-related businesses, and potentially chilling constitutionally protected expression near the line of obscenity. Supporters would likely argue that the bill gives harmed persons meaningful remedies and stronger deterrence against commercial exploitation of obscene material. Another possible issue is how courts would apply the obscenity standard and determine who qualifies as “harmed” for purposes of bringing suit.