From what I understand, this bill would loosen the definition and there are existing laws that ban. And under federal law since 1873, the sale and distribution of obscene materials had been prohibited by federal law. This doesn't apply just to public broadcast (there are additional restrictions on radio and TV), but internet as well.
So if "obscene" material is already prohibited, online pornography is already illegal. Whatever you consider the definition of "obscene", I'm pretty sure you can find major online outlets that produce, sell and monetize this content. So is it just an enforcement thing that the federal government allows all this stuff to exist? This stuff is all a federal crime already, why bother with moving the definition slightly?
>Let's not get sidetracked with the whole LGTBIQH or whatever topic
No -LET'S; because it's not a sidetrack; it's the primary motivation.
Quoth project 2025:
"Pornography, manifested today in the *omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology* and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."
This is saying that anyone performing education or support services on LGBTQ issues, specifically transgender issues "educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders."
Focusing on this issue is not a side-track; it's one of the primary motivators for this new bill -to target, harass and imprison those who are LGBTQ...
of course anyone with more than two working braincells can anticipate how it would be expanded upon (goodbye freedom of assembly, goodbye unionizing); but it's a foot in the door.
Viewing a video two people have sex is not damaging at any age. One may find it wrong, but their evaluation is arbitrary. For whatever reason violence is often not regarded in the same light.
> Right now, a 4-year-old child can access any porn site and binge as they please, becoming addicted to dopamine. No, that’s not okay.
That's not completely wrong, unfortunately, but also: If you follow that logic, we have already raised several generations of (now adult) addicts, who would be required to instantly go "cold turkey" after a lifetime of addiction. Did the authors of that law envision any kind of treatment for them?
> The internet should be safe for everyone — at least on the surface.
Who defines "safe"?
I'm sure there are numerous people on this site that would feel unsafe from your not-so-subtle dig at the LGBTQ; should you no longer have the ability to communicate on the internet?
What method do you propose to allow acceptable users (IE adults) who want to access such content the means to do so, without compromising their privacy and operational security?
Otherwise, you're merely trading people's actual security and freedom for control.
Im frankly tired of negligent parents expecting the government to regulate away anything and everything that's not explicitly created for children on the internet.
Eh, there is a middle ground between permitting LGBT, Trans and reproductive health education and throwing extreme porn into people's faces?
This middle ground is definitely not what this law is seeking, but I just want to note that the opposite extreme position is just as dishonest. (Both are essentially the same motte/bailey argument, just with the motte and bailey swapped - and both implicitly assume that LGBT = porn)
It would be very easy to enforce against anyone that wanted to be made an example of, which would likely be anyone speaking out against what's happening in America
Sure, but if there was a real legal threat, porn would just migrate to tor or sites hosted outside the US. Or you can set up web-of-trust communities for e2e sharing of content and use xmr for payments, etc.
The internet conveniently allows circumvention of laws without much personal exposure.
New bill should make clickbait and TikTok like dopamine dependent services/games & lootboxes illegal. Make software one time purchases again.
I’d let them ban porn in return for the above.
Literally thousands of bills get introduced each Congress. Most go nowhere… many are intended to go nowhere. Instead they are basically PR exercises.
In addition to the obvious First Amendment concerns, this bill would run up hard against the bro caucus of the Trump coalition. Do we think Elon Musk and Joe Rogan are going to spend their resources on a federal porn ban bill? Are Libertarians likely to support this? Will it get 60 votes in the Senate? Etc.
Joe smokes weed in a state that outlaws it. Elon rants about fraud when he has been the single biggest purveyor of vaporware to the federal government. Thiel is married to a man but promotes the consolidation of power for the advancement of project 2025 because the super rich are immune to any new deprivation of freedoms.
All that guarantees freedom in the new system is adequate measures of compliance and capital. For all others, name the person, and the machine will autonomously identify a thought crime.
The best part about rolling back free speech protections is that the internet is full of evidence for ex post facto indictment. Enemies of the state have been openly parading their dissent. For those who recognize this, speech is already chilling fast.
Look mom! I’m in a hearing for a passive aggressive internet post :D
And issue with these bills is that for those who make them, the mere existence of LGBT people is pornographic.
I get people who are against porn. I see their arguments, where they are coming from. But at the same time, it seems that for so many of them, my first paragraph applies.
Believe it or not, people can oppose both kinds of censorship.
Some of us haven't forgotten the days of overzealous Christian mothers getting products banned off store shelves, before it swung to far-left activists doing similar for digital creators/services, to now where the pendulum appears to be swinging back to the right-wing as the proponents of censorship.
Edit: before you -1 this out of homophobia, ask yourself what drives you to do so.
Yeah this is clearly another way that they're trying to make the LGBTQ+ community invisible and in this case make it illegal to discuss anything about them. It's a mask-off attack on about %5 of the population. As a non-American looking in closely, I lament the terrible environment my American LGBTQ+ peers find themselves in at home.
From what I understand, this bill would loosen the definition and there are existing laws that ban. And under federal law since 1873, the sale and distribution of obscene materials had been prohibited by federal law. This doesn't apply just to public broadcast (there are additional restrictions on radio and TV), but internet as well.
So if "obscene" material is already prohibited, online pornography is already illegal. Whatever you consider the definition of "obscene", I'm pretty sure you can find major online outlets that produce, sell and monetize this content. So is it just an enforcement thing that the federal government allows all this stuff to exist? This stuff is all a federal crime already, why bother with moving the definition slightly?
And then of course, all you need to do is declare any speech pornographic. Voila, the 1st - neutered.
No, just some words. They already started.
[flagged]
>Let's not get sidetracked with the whole LGTBIQH or whatever topic
No -LET'S; because it's not a sidetrack; it's the primary motivation.
Quoth project 2025: "Pornography, manifested today in the *omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology* and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."
This is saying that anyone performing education or support services on LGBTQ issues, specifically transgender issues "educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders."
Focusing on this issue is not a side-track; it's one of the primary motivators for this new bill -to target, harass and imprison those who are LGBTQ...
of course anyone with more than two working braincells can anticipate how it would be expanded upon (goodbye freedom of assembly, goodbye unionizing); but it's a foot in the door.
> Right now, a 4-year-old child can access any porn site
I don't know what kind of household you run but in mine a 4 year old can not access any electronics at all let alone porn sites on the Internet
Viewing a video two people have sex is not damaging at any age. One may find it wrong, but their evaluation is arbitrary. For whatever reason violence is often not regarded in the same light.
> Right now, a 4-year-old child can access any porn site and binge as they please, becoming addicted to dopamine. No, that’s not okay.
That's not completely wrong, unfortunately, but also: If you follow that logic, we have already raised several generations of (now adult) addicts, who would be required to instantly go "cold turkey" after a lifetime of addiction. Did the authors of that law envision any kind of treatment for them?
That's an easy one. Addicts are criminals and will and will be deported.
What 4 year old gets dopamine from watching people have sex? absolutely bonkers
> The internet should be safe for everyone — at least on the surface.
Who defines "safe"?
I'm sure there are numerous people on this site that would feel unsafe from your not-so-subtle dig at the LGBTQ; should you no longer have the ability to communicate on the internet?
What method do you propose to allow acceptable users (IE adults) who want to access such content the means to do so, without compromising their privacy and operational security?
Otherwise, you're merely trading people's actual security and freedom for control.
Im frankly tired of negligent parents expecting the government to regulate away anything and everything that's not explicitly created for children on the internet.
Eh, there is a middle ground between permitting LGBT, Trans and reproductive health education and throwing extreme porn into people's faces?
This middle ground is definitely not what this law is seeking, but I just want to note that the opposite extreme position is just as dishonest. (Both are essentially the same motte/bailey argument, just with the motte and bailey swapped - and both implicitly assume that LGBT = porn)
I am interested in reason you wrote it as "LGTBIQH". I mean, I know why, it'd be nice if you were open about it.
[dead]
https://archive.is/C6Jss
Even if something like this passes, it would be ignored by everyone and also would be impossible to enforce.
We would see companies reshore at the very worst. I and many others would set up new sites specifically to violate the law for funzies.
It would be very easy to enforce against anyone that wanted to be made an example of, which would likely be anyone speaking out against what's happening in America
Evidence: the last 4 months in America
Sure, but if there was a real legal threat, porn would just migrate to tor or sites hosted outside the US. Or you can set up web-of-trust communities for e2e sharing of content and use xmr for payments, etc.
The internet conveniently allows circumvention of laws without much personal exposure.
>This is Lee’s third attempt at trying to pass the same bill: He tried it in 2022 and again in 2024.
seems a bit unlikely to pass.
Elect clowns, expect a circus
New bill should make clickbait and TikTok like dopamine dependent services/games & lootboxes illegal. Make software one time purchases again. I’d let them ban porn in return for the above.
> Make software one time purchases again
Even if software is using servers?
the ends justify the means, eh?
Not really. I’m stating my terms.
Literally thousands of bills get introduced each Congress. Most go nowhere… many are intended to go nowhere. Instead they are basically PR exercises.
In addition to the obvious First Amendment concerns, this bill would run up hard against the bro caucus of the Trump coalition. Do we think Elon Musk and Joe Rogan are going to spend their resources on a federal porn ban bill? Are Libertarians likely to support this? Will it get 60 votes in the Senate? Etc.
Joe smokes weed in a state that outlaws it. Elon rants about fraud when he has been the single biggest purveyor of vaporware to the federal government. Thiel is married to a man but promotes the consolidation of power for the advancement of project 2025 because the super rich are immune to any new deprivation of freedoms.
All that guarantees freedom in the new system is adequate measures of compliance and capital. For all others, name the person, and the machine will autonomously identify a thought crime.
The best part about rolling back free speech protections is that the internet is full of evidence for ex post facto indictment. Enemies of the state have been openly parading their dissent. For those who recognize this, speech is already chilling fast.
Look mom! I’m in a hearing for a passive aggressive internet post :D
And issue with these bills is that for those who make them, the mere existence of LGBT people is pornographic.
I get people who are against porn. I see their arguments, where they are coming from. But at the same time, it seems that for so many of them, my first paragraph applies.
Hey remember when conservatives were upset about how the "woke mob" hates free speech? Iirc even pg had a blog about that.
Believe it or not, people can oppose both kinds of censorship.
Some of us haven't forgotten the days of overzealous Christian mothers getting products banned off store shelves, before it swung to far-left activists doing similar for digital creators/services, to now where the pendulum appears to be swinging back to the right-wing as the proponents of censorship.
Can't wait for the blog post on this.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
I have friends that think just because someone is transgender, they are a sexual deviant. I seriously don't understand people.
It's those people who don't understand, and rationalizing it is not really possible
You (the royal you) are not necessarily wrong or confused just because you're in the minority. But it definitely sucks.
Edit: before you -1 this out of homophobia, ask yourself what drives you to do so.
Yeah this is clearly another way that they're trying to make the LGBTQ+ community invisible and in this case make it illegal to discuss anything about them. It's a mask-off attack on about %5 of the population. As a non-American looking in closely, I lament the terrible environment my American LGBTQ+ peers find themselves in at home.