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.
That’s harsher fines than being an insurrectionist.
This guy has the look of someone with a rape dungeon
Dusty deavers? There’s no way that is not his twink porn name.
He looks like he has a diaper fetish
Baby Num Num
Bet you, every single one of the cunts pushing for this would have to immediately be convicted under the very same laws.
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.
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…
If only it’d be enforced as such
Itll only be enforced against people they dont like.
Next, having a vagina out of wedlock will be illegal.
Did you just spell out the V word?? Fined and imprisoned, sinner!
I would propose expanding the second part to include oral and written delivery, not just digital. The only valid form of sexual dialogue is to be dance.
And only 17th and 18th century dance forms.
Written? Guess we’ll have to ban the Bible then
Yes, but they don’t know that because they never actually read their “word of god” but get a raging erection when they hallucinate about a “good ol’ time” that actually never existed in the first place.
I think I’m dancing wrong
If you’re not conveying both your sexual desire and prowess in a dance, then yeah. You’re doing it wrong. It’s why I never learned to dance.
Oh fuck off.
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Guess they’ll have to disconnect the Internet in Oklahoma then.
In the wise words of Dr. Cox, if they removed all porn from the Internet there would be only one website left, saying bring back the porn.
Dr cocks.
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.
removed by mod
I live in the south and I would like to cordially invite you to not move here. Ever. Stay where you are please. We don’t need anymore right wingers crying because they wish they lived in a theocratic dictatorship. We have too many of those already, we’re at capacity. Feel free to take some of ours. Take them far far away.
I’m a far left anarchist. And yeah – no plans to move to the shithole that is the south anytime soon.
What
what
So they basically just want to abolish free speech? This is the first step in that process. Once they get one law passed about something like porn it makes it super easy to amend that law at any time to include anything the state deems to be “dangerous”.
Yeah porn is the easy target since not many politicians in Oklahoma are going to oppose it. Since it could damage their political image. Nobody wants to be labeled the porno guy/gal in the right wing news.
You better be married to spez if you live in Oklahoma or you are going to jail
Of course. And you can bet your ass will be applied only very selectively.
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.
While we’re arbitrarily disregarding the constitution, i now declare all assault rifles illegal. Suck my dick, asscunts.
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.
