Republicans are drunk with power. What a stupid fucking idea. There’s no chance of banning porn. Then they wouldn’t be able to jerk to Trans women and feel shame after.
Trans women are hot, in case that reads as though the shame is correct. It’s not.
My question is what defines pornography? Will museums have to cloak statues of naked people? Remove a renaissance era painting because of boobs? How about a movie that has tasteful nudity? Or just ads for Victoria Secret?
Arbitrary enforcement is a feature not a bug
Don’t forget capricious!
deleted by creator
As is always the case with fascists, the laws will apply to the people they don’t like and be ignored for the people they do like. So long as Victoria’s Secret’s CEO continues paying the bribes, it’s not porn.
Christians in the late Roman empire went about destroying a lot of old statues and breaking off the genitalia on them. The Roman’s weren’t shy about giving nude male statues manly bits down there.
It didn’t end with them either. During the Victorian era many European archeologists had no issue breaking the junk off artifacts they found.
The definition of pornography isn’t the issue here as that has a long standing and pretty clear definition. The issue would be the wording of the bill as from the small bit I can see before the paywall block, it isn’t a ban on pornography but a vague ban on obscene content. Who gets to decide what is “obscene content” and how that is determined is the problem as it would be ripe for abuse by whichever party is in power. The government of the day could say that opposing political opinions are “obscene” and therefore banned.
yes
We’d do like the Vatican and chisel off the genitals off all the statues. Next it will be a Christian version of a burka.
I believe the answer is “you know it when you see it”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
No, the article discusses that.
Ah, I couldn’t get to that part because it requires a sign in
The article mentions how it will be defined.