HR-6732-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
What it does
This bill would create a new federal criminal offense for compelling a minor to engage in animal crushing, self-harm, obscene speech, sexually explicit conduct, or abusive or degrading nonsexual conduct. Violations — including attempts and conspiracies — would be punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both. The bill would also allow minors aged 13 and older who commit this offense under certain aggravating circumstances (such as possessing a firearm during the offense) to be prosecuted as adults in federal court.
Who benefits
Minors who are victims of coercion into sexual exploitation, self-harm, or degrading conduct — including children targeted through online platforms. Child advocacy organizations that have sought federal criminal tools to prosecute coercers. Federal prosecutors who would gain a new, specific statutory charge. Parents and guardians of at-risk minors. Communities where such offenses currently fall into gaps between existing federal statutes.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted under the new offense, who would face federal criminal penalties. Juvenile offenders aged 13 and older who could be tried as adults, potentially facing harsher sentences and adult criminal records. Civil liberties organizations concerned about the breadth of terms like "obscene speech" and "degrading nonsexual conduct," which may be difficult to define precisely. Defense attorneys who may face challenges contesting vague statutory language. Families of juvenile defendants prosecuted as adults.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that existing federal law does not adequately address the full range of coercive conduct used to exploit minors — particularly non-sexual degradation, self-harm coercion, and animal crushing — leaving prosecutors without the tools to charge perpetrators who stop short of direct sexual abuse. They contend that the adult-prosecution provision for armed juvenile offenders reflects the severity of aggravated cases and that closing these statutory gaps is essential to protecting children from a documented and evolving set of online and in-person coercive tactics.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that terms like "degrading nonsexual conduct" and "obscene speech" are constitutionally vague and could sweep in conduct protected by the First Amendment, echoing concerns the Supreme Court has raised about overbroad statutes in the speech context. They also contend that automatically funneling 13-year-old offenders into adult federal court under aggravating criteria risks disproportionate punishment for juveniles — a concern the Court highlighted in Miller v. Alabama (2012) — and that existing federal child protection statutes may already cover the most serious conduct without the risks posed by imprecise new language.