• desktop_user
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    this “party of small government” really hates the first amendment?

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    REMINDER THAT ONLY ONE PARTY REMOVES RIGHTS.

    And that’s the party the majority of voting Americans voted for.

    Hope you all enjoy this sinking ship.

    • desktop_user
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Germany seems to be trying to remove the rights of the afd, but in general absolutely.

  • taco@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 days ago

    The definition of obscenity necessitates a lack of “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

    This bill won’t ban porn, it’ll just make it all require a plot.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 days ago

      If porn becomes a political issue (because one political group is far more likely to support it’s prohibition than others), then technically, couldn’t it be argued that creating and sharing it has political value as a protest of the effort to ban it, and therefore that it has political value inherently?

    • Gork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      There’s already some good plotlines. My favorite is the Lemon Stealing Whore. Tier S writing there.

    • Gwen
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      This bill is part of Project 2025 and the aim is to make it illegal to be a trans person.

      • Zenith@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The end goal of project 2025 is to establish a Christian nationalist fascist government, strictly enforcing gender roles is just part of that

  • Greyghoster@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 days ago

    Isn’t porn a staple of the religious conservative? I’m sure they will vote for this in the belief that it doesn’t apply to them.

      • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Oh, you better believe they’ll have ‘religious (Christian) exemptions’ to laws, carved out under the guise of using ‘freedom of religion’ as a defense from gov’t control. Just like they already do for molesting choir and altar boys.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    I guarantee this douchebag has a very weird search history on pornhub. Like amputee clown porn. Or latex and animals. It’s something odd. I mean if that’s your thing and it’s legal go for it. But something that would cause a lot of pearl clutching if it was made public.

    • Zenith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      No, I think it’s time we started taking shit seriously. Clearly laughing and brushing it off, being in denial, hasn’t been a good strategy for us collectively

      • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 days ago

        And draining the swamp, deporting illegals, etc. Where in a new world where the Bill of Rights and constitutionally mandated agencies aren’t protected from the Executive’s and oligarch’s wrecking ball / grift.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    Probably this doesn’t even come up for vote.

    In the event it does, well, they just went to war with the biggest streaming platform independent of Google. Do they have any idea how much muscle PornHub has if they were so inclined?

  • شاهد على إبادة@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Why not just require ISPs to block it? That’s what many countries do without having to go through the trouble of criminalizing and prosecuting the consumers.

    I don’t agree with the spirit or purpose of the law nor with banning or criminalizing. But one is less harmful than the other.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because the point is to be able to enforce it arbitrarily. To be able to Target specific people and groups. Being harmful is the point.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      But one is less harmful than the other.

      Lol. We’re talking about the Republican party. Their fetish is to hurt Americans. And American’s fetish is to be hurt by them.