this country is so fucking cool
Everyone involved in pushing this law should be barred from working in government, and fined for wasting our time.
Just let them pass it then search their browser history. You know the only reason they’re so concerned about it is they’re ball’s deep into it.
“Balls deep” is sexting. I’ve called the police!
I wish I didn’t live in my COMMUNIST blue state where I can freely watch porn, read books, receive healthcare, feed hungry kids, breath clean air, turn around in driveways without getting shot and an abortion if I or my 10 year old daughter gets RAPED! I would MUCH rather live in a Red State where it’s only legal to shoot homeless people, go to church and breath fumes from the coal plant next door unless it gets too cold and I freeze to death!
I agree with most of this, but don’t act like your healthcare is enough if you live in the US.
My healthcare is though, it’s just ridiculously expensive
FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🍟🍟🍟🍟🍟🍟
I mean they are gonna be free to kill homeless people. That’s gotta count for something.
Also, wonder how this will impact the incest porn scene.
This song sums it up really well
Small government right?
Small enough to sneak into people’s private lives.
Funny how they paint the Muslim theocracy as the devil and proceed to do exactly the same without any of them batting an eye
If it wasn’t for the whole “brown people” thing, a LOT of folks in the US would love to do Sharia Law.
Gotta keep the competition at bay.
deleted by creator
Taking bets on how long it takes (not if, but when) this man is hacked and found to be absorbed in the exact thing he’s trying to ban.
Taking bets now!
I’ll start.
80pb porn collection
Pedobytes.
I’ll raise you one word: *child
This should be called the “Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much” Rule.
What is wrong with Americans?
a brand of conservatism driven by religion
People think the religion is fundamentalist Christianity, but actually the religion is unchecked consumerism.
Well it’s whatever serves best at the moment ^^
They write articles about a bill some whacko proposed that has no chance of passing (and would be struck down in 5 minutes on first amendment grounds of it did) and pearl clutchers act like it’s the end of the world. Have you seen The People vs Larry Flint? That took place 60 years ago. This shit is nothing new.
The whacko still found his way into that position.
There’s 47 state senators in Oklahoma. You’re bound to get a stinker every now and then.
47/4000,000, not all that many realistically. You’d think you could find 47 sane people.
I think you’d struggle to find 47 sane people who want to work in state government
a bill some whacko proposed that has no chance of passing
A lot of the craziest shit in the lawbooks were things some whacko proposed “that has no chance of passing”.
and would be struck down in 5 minutes on first amendment grounds of it did
Current SCOTUS precedent is that the First Amendment does not protect porn if it contains “obscenity”. Specifically, any porn can be banned if it:
- Makes people uneasy
- Includes offensive sexual conduct - as decided by state law (?!?)
- “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”
It’s called the Miller Test
Notice the wording used in the proposed law. It’s already been pre-considered to have a solid chance of surviving a SCOTUS appeal. And the current SCOTUS wouldn’t dream of overriding Conservative jurisprudence.
pearl clutchers act like it’s the end of the world
Unfortunately, this is the type of anti-reactionary discussion that led to us being genuinely surprised when Roe v Wade got overturned. Clarence Thomas used the opportunity to signal that he would like to overturn Obergefell and Griswold as well. And he 100% has Barrett on his side and almost certainly has Kavanaugh. That means all he has to do is elbow Gorsuch and suck off Roberts and porn (and sex toys) could be illegal in some states, working towards a federal ban.
led to us being genuinely surprised when Roe v Wade got overturned.
Speak for yourself. I was not surprised when roe v wade was overturned, in fact I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did. The court invented a right that they wanted to be there and declared it had been there all along. That is not the judicial branch’s job. Roe v wade should have been replaced with a law, drafted by legislators, by like 1976. 50 years of Democrats dropped the ball on this and now innocent women are paying the price.
The court invented a right that they wanted to be there and declared it had been there all along
…here we go again. I feel like people bring this up without understanding it all the time. The Fundamental Right to Privacy used in Roe comes from Griswold, and is (and was) an absolutely defensible interpretation of the Constitution. Much of our jurisprudence comes from Common Law and Reading Between the Lines (which is different from inventing a right from scratch). If you have a right to do A and a right to do B, there is absolutely an argument that you have a right to do A#.
More importantly, DOBBS AGREED. They just said “There is a right to privacy, but fetuses are special. Bubye Roe”.
Roe v wade should have been replaced with a law, drafted by legislators, by like 1976
…which SCOTUS could easily decide is Federal overreach. A lot of people have argued with me (convincingly) that the best foundations of such a law are still not unassailable. The argument that the Constitution allows the federal government to protect abortion is just weaker than the argument that the Constitution inherently protects abortion.
50 years of Democrats dropped the ball on this and now innocent women are paying the price
Roe was decided by a largely pro-life conservative Judiciary, and the Right to Privacy was the weaker of two protections behind a clear 14th Amendment protection. Passing a law protecting abortion in 1976 is like passing a law protecting the right to Pray in your own home, or a law that forbids prosecutors from executing suspects during the arraignment. This is one of those things we really cannot justify blaming the Democrats for.
Well I don’t agree with you, but damned if you didn’t make a solid argument.
Sorry I started with “here we go again”. In retrospect, it’s not fair to treat a person who makes an argument like they are the argument itself.
It’s very common that I hear the “invented a right” complaint for Roe. There are a lot of valid criticisms for how jurisprudence works in America, but none of those valid criticisms started with Roe. Arguably they didn’t even fully start with Griswold, but the specific one in Roe did. People also often bring up Justice Ginsburg’s distaste for Roe. What they don’t understand (or conveniently forget) is that she was overridden in her 14th Amendment assertions by Justices that could be described as “Pro-life”, who came up with perhaps the most anti-choice interpretation of the Constitution as it was seen at that time. The “shaky ground” people talk about wasn’t Roe, but that Roe intentionally left a ton of room for states to add so-called “reasonable restrictions” on abortion, the kinds of restrictions the federal government would really struggle to justify limiting. If Oklahoma has a 3rd Trimester ban, get the abortion earlier or drive to a state without said ban. So long as they didn’t ban leaving the state to get an abortion, there’s not much for the federal government to write a law on.
Gen z, millennials, and The Gays. /S.
Edit: sorry I forgot the The Blacks, and Hunter Bidens Laptop.
Y’all Qaeda
This is like… Middle East religion police stuff.
So what do you think? How many of the politicians pushing for this are sexting with children?
The Venn diagram is a circle
That’s the thing… The bill is for 18+. What they are doing is funnelling sex fiends to the children their cabal sells. Epstein lives through celebrities and politicians.
Sadly that’s probably true.
Proof once again these delusional religious people need to fuck off.
The bill, set to be introduced next month by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Elgin), would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.
Ok then, every piece of sexual content I produce or consume is in political protest of this specific bill. That should hold up in court. Bust one for Dusty!
He’s just mad because he was born old. When they did the cracker jack at his fraternity, he could only season the cracker with a shot of of ol dusty.
What a terrible day to have eyes
it’s a story about the love between two people!
Wait…
You’re telling me that “Hentai is art” is a legal defense to this law, then?
Dusty Deevers is a cartoon name
This should be turned around like what was done with Rick Santorum (Santorum. Def: "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.")
Back at the beginning of Google-bombing, this was one of the early incredibly successful campaigns. This one wasn’t a neologism, but was another one that should be remembered just in case the ghoul Ann Coulter ever reemerges: I fucked Ann Coulter in the ass - hard.
We just need a good one for Dusty Deevers.
How about - Deever: The bifurcation of the urine stream out of the male sex organ
It plays on the sound of diverge, and is absolutely a thing people would want a word for. It will grow naturally as groups of dudes laughingly complain about it. And I bet old skeever deever will hate it.
I’m down with it; you have my vote.
Land of the free, home of the American Taliban
I love watching our clueless citizens just allow this descent into fascism. Who knew it would be as simple as just not teaching kids what the word means.
would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.
So you get get around it with a whiteboard in the background that has a math equation on it. Kinda like you can get around the swimsuit ban on twitch if you have an inflatable pool with water in it in the background.
Maybe someone over there is watching porn for the story and is simply trying to ban porn without it. And I agree, I can’t take it seriously if I don’t understand my stepmoms motivation and background.
You’re gonna sit here and act like the stepsisters opinion doesn’t even matter? WHAT IF SHE GETS STUCK?
… Im starting to understand the importance of the proposed legislation. Maybe we need a government agency to officially rank/score porn by the plot quality. Maybe a system like RottenTomatoes (RottenAssholes?).
I prefer a more reputable site like CrushedMuff (14.5oz can)
Okay, now we’re going to learn about the numbers with Lana and Kelly Roses. First Kelly will count with me to 10…1, 2,…7, 8,9 and 10!.. oh my God! I just wanna count so much! Oh my God, I’m gonna count! Img gonna count!
Those carve outs already exist for state classification laws.
We really need a law where any politician who wants to vote to ban something has to first disclose their own relevant actions.
Or maybe just enforce the Constitution.
Both of those are constitutionally illegal.
Let’s ask the Supreme Court what do they think.
…
They’re on a private plane with a billionaire. Will get back to us later.
😳
Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.
Good thing porn isn’t obscene
Fuck off
Thank you for demonstrating your first amendment rights, patriot
Not sure why you’re downvoted. You are correct: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/obscenity#:~:text=Obscenity is not protected under,obscenity laws are criminal offenses.
