A bill set to be introduced next month would ban consuming or producing sexual content and punish offenders with prison sentences of up to 20 years and $25,000 fines.
Bet you, every single one of the cunts pushing for this would have to immediately be convicted under the very same laws.
deleted by creator
Like American Marijuana laws, the cops didnt really care about people smoking weed, it was a convient way to put black people in jail.
Black people and hippies. The two groups Nixon hated more than anyone else.
Wasn’t too fond of Asians either…
They want something to feel special about. Conservatives love getting away with stuff that is “wrong” and since society has normalized a lot of previously “wrong” behaviors these people no longer have anything to feel special about. Subjugating others is how they get off.
If only it’d be enforced as such
This guy has the look of someone with a rape dungeon
He looks like he has a diaper fetish
Baby Num Num
Dusty deavers? There’s no way that is not his twink porn name.
any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”
So there goes the majority of mainstream movies too, I guess 🤦
Who gets to define what “normal” means?
Come on. You know it’s Jebus.
What is with the steady criminalization and paranoia with all things sexual in the last 15 yrs or so? It feels like more than the usual paranoia.
I believe it is how self-proclaimed christians are responding to sexual and gender liberty/tolerance. They see it as lost ground in their crusade against deviance. So they are escalating things beyond reason in order to sooth their own conscience.
That’s how I see it. Closeted bigots being closeted bigots.
Also feels like Gen z is more prudish and so, even if they don’t really agree with these movements, they also aren’t as affected, so don’t really care about it happening either.
The new Puritans
And they know the rules will never apply to them anyway even if they get caught. Win win
Exactly. If they don’t understand, like or want it for themselves, nobody is allowes to have it and they will defund, ban and punish.
See sexuality, reproductive health, the arts, basic education, etc.
They’re losing the culture war, both at a societal level and a political one. So they’re lashing out, ideally with what are the last gasps of their regressive ideology
Next, having a vagina out of wedlock will be illegal.
Did you just spell out the V word?? Fined and imprisoned, sinner!
The lawmakers pushing this should have their browsing history and message logs examined by a team of data recovery experts.
I can assure you, they are into some weird shit but they spout these bullshit platitudes about turning others away from sin. It’s almost certainly because they are embarrassed or insecure about their own desires.
See also : every right leaning politician who was secretly closeted gay
John Oliver was doing something like that around a piece about data brokers:
https://youtu.be/wqn3gR1WTcA?si=rq-rJmo4YoW5vt6b&t=20m55sIt was wonderful.
The lawmakers proposing this… We should bring back tar and feathers.
would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.
MOST porn is art because it has a camera as a medium, and it is viewed as “Entertainment”, this bill will have no teeth on arrival.
My main problem is that this kind of logic is next door neighbors with, “That woman was dressed in a pornographic way! She should be dressed from head to toe in black!”
Edit: correction
Wasn’t this exactly what the Larry Flint case was about already? Sounds like political grand standing, so they can say they did something even if that something is completely moot anyway.
“That woman was dressed in a pornographic way! She should be dressed from head to toe in black!”
There’s no production there. Though… if we were to accept that it counts for “production” then technically… if you the “viewer” of that person view it in a sexual way, you’d be able to be held by the law as well.
Can anyone tell me which year it is in Oklahoma? It can’t be anything starting with 20, 19, or even 18, that’s for sure.
Well witch burning is next along with sponsoring a fleet of explorers to see what lies across the western ocean.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is either something that will only ever be selectively enforced, or designed to be so outrageous they can walk it back to what they actually want and look like they’re compromising.
Oh fuck off.
“Listen here, I’m doing the lord’s work!”
I imagine there are still brick and mortar stores in Oklahoma that sell porn and sex merchandise. This would ruin their business. What a bunch of idiots. This will never survive a challenge in court.
Can someone help parse the bill? I read it and it looked like it was related to CP. I know that they like to bury and conflate things but I was having trouble parsing out what the headline implies.
Edit: don’t know what’s with the downvotes. I’m serious. I have a friend solely pointing that out and I’d like to provide information to show it’s more than that. I tried to read the bill but it keeps just referencing CP.
Did you read the article with quotes from the guy pushing the bill? They might have thrown CSAM ( CP is inappropriate verbiage) in there as a dog whistle because they want people to believe the “perverts” are coming for their kids. Or it is an attempt to make the bill seem more legitimate. They literally want to cut OK off from social media if it isn’t heavily censored. They want to take your freedom of speech away under the guise of stopping “sexual perversion” they they are certainly guilty of themselves.
I did read it and I saw those cherry picked words in the bill, but when reading the full context it prefaces them with “child pornagraphy” in front of it. I don’t doubt the hidden meaning in this bill, I’m trying to help find exact sentences where it separates CSAM from the rest being mentioned.
So you’re looking for the “how can we make this look good” explanation. You aren’t going to find that nonsense here.
I’m looking for the separation of what is related to CSAM and what is related to everyone so I can hit them over the head with it and prove it’s not just a “think of the children” thing. The bill is (probably purposely) ambiguous and I’m having trouble extracting what it being said in the article.
There probably is no separation because to them someone who is willing to be so perverted as to watch porn is also willing to prey on the children. The two are one and the same in their heads.
This is meant for SCOTUS to overturn Jabovellis v Ohio.
