Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
Ah, some shonrim I can get behind.
...wait no, I didn't mean it that way!
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Elon Musk is planning to step down from Twitter with no successor.
So what is he up to now?
So what is he up to now?
CarlosDanger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2020
Rumors going around it might be Jared Kushner.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
Not being assassinated by the CIA.
The political options are ending by the hand of the left. The last time they tried to stack the deck a lot of Americans died. Guess we gotta do it again.
Fed note: I am referencing the Civil War...Open a book retards.
I dont need a license I have all this coke
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Breaking911 on Gab: 'KARI LAKE: "I identify as a proud election denyin…'
Breaking911 on Gab: 'KARI LAKE: "I identify as a proud election denying deplorable [...] and my pronouns are 'I Won.'"'
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
It's not so much that it was never legislated and more that the supreme court has repeatedly struck down laws prohibiting pornography as violations of the first amendment, on the grounds that the state has no right to prohibit someone, or a group of people, from acting of their own volition to engage in the creation of "speech" - which has ben essentially defined as the creation of any sort of media. The rulings have tended to get into the weeds of things like "artistic merit" and there's some entanglement with what exactly obscenity means, but that's the general thrust of it. There's no need to legislate on this issue because, unlike roe vs wade's digging to find rights that were never enumerated, the constitution is quite clear: the state cannot restrict speech. Arbitrarily attempting to redefine speech to exclude certain categories, merely because some people don't like them, is a 1A violation in itself, which is why attempts at hate-speech laws in the US tend not to fare too well.
No. Child pornography necessarily involves children in sexual activities, which is a harmful act in itself. A child cannot consent to sex, no matter what the wall-hangings like to argue, so any sexual actikvity with a child is automatically rape and child abuse. Distributing or consuming imagery of child abuse makes you an accessory after the fact.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
Don't worry, it'll be part of your necessary and vital digital passport citizen
You're smartphone will contain everything you need. As well as that biomedical chip in your forehead
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
No, there is no logically consistent reason under the First Amendment to ban child porn and allow adult porn. Banning either type of porn is an infringement upon free speech. The child porn laws are on incredibly weak ground constitutionally and Congress was warned about this when they created those laws and again in the dissent in the court case that upheld them.
Under your logic, all we need to do is ban adult porn is to declare that creating porn is abuse and make it a crime to film, distribute, or watch it. We’d just be protecting victims, not infringing on speech.
Also, since children cannot consent to work, any movie with child actors should also be illegal, if that was actually the standard and not just an excuse to ban something abhorrent.
I’m not defending child porn, but under a strict reading of the constitution it would have to be legal to distribute and watch it, though you could charge the creators for the crimes they committed on video. Under a less strict reading of the First Amendment, there is no reason why adult porn must be legal. The only reason why adult porn would stay legal if a law was passed to ban it is because most modern judges have zero logical reasoning ability and because porn is popular (Hmm…I wonder why the press is trying to normalize pedophilia…)
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
I'm not so sure you just said
Keep acting like you just didn't defend CP but you look like you just defended CP.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
Dumbass, I was attacking regular porn not defending CP. Bet you also think that Barry Goldwater was against racial equality.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
Sure you were, sure you were.
Don't play your dumb faggot logic games here newfag pedo.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
Wow you're dumb. Try reading the date next to my name. I'm sorry I said that your coom material should be banned as well as CP.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2017
You're still a new fag, 2020 and 21 were just slightly less awful than 22.
So shut up newfag pedo apologist.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
And 2017 was worse than 2016 and 2015. You can't call someone a newfag when you have an account made five years after the site was created.
Shut up coomer. Attacking coomers isn't defending pedos. I hope Mike Lee bans all porn.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
That escalated quickly....
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
I mean sure, if you dismiss all the logical reasons why there's a difference, then there's no logical reasons.
I didn't say children can't consent to work. I said children cannot consent to sex. The inability or refusal to make this distinction, when it comes to what children can or cannot understand and do, is how you end up with wall hangings and troons arguing for the liberation of child sexuality.
Children working in film have consent given on their behalf by their parents. A parent cannot consent to sex on behalf of their child. A parent cannot consent to a lot of things on behalf of their child, but sex is right out, for what should be very obvious reasons. Courts and legislatures both, in every western nation, have severely limited what kinds of contract a parent can consent to on behalf of their child, but they've almost never had to legislate against a parent consenting to sex on behalf of their child, as by definition it counts as sexual abuse. Because, and I feel I must repeat this, a child cannot consent to sex.
Except that wouldn't fly. If everyone is taking part of their own volition, then what they're doing falls squarely into the realm of protected speech.
You could create a requirement to prove that everyone involved was acting of their own volition. A canny politician might take that tack, requiring consent forms and psychological assessments and whatever else, burying the entire industry under mountains of paperwork.
What generally tends to happen, though, is that a bunch of people say "I don't like this", then some political hack tries to garner their support by creating a poorly thought-out law to just ban porn outright, which would inevitably get struck down by the supreme court in the unlikely event it passes. When politicians get up and says "porn bad, I'm banning porn", it's a pure virtue signal. They know it won't survive. There's too much established precedent against it.
People looking for child sexual abuse material are looking with the intent of seeing a child sexually abused. That intent is what makes the ultimate difference. They're seeking out material distributed by people who have abused children. They are creating a demand for the abuse of children. Adults can consent to sex. Children cannot, ever, consent to sex. That is the consistent and logical reason why child pornography and adult pornography are, and should be, treated as separate things.
For the record, I don't like porn. It isn't remotely appealing.
Anyway, how bout dem politics
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
This is the part you're missing. All it takes is some activists to claim that women are coerced into performing in sex roles and filming porn could become abuse overnight and no longer protected speech. This is a common feminist position that has been around for years, though it hasn't gained much traction.
#MeToo is a an example of this happening. Harvey Weinstein wasn't abusing the actresses, he was selling movie roles in exchange for sex. They all were consenting adults willingly prostituting themselves, until one day they weren't and he was an abuser.
Once you start down the slippery slope of banning speech, anything can be justified to be so abhorrent it must also be banned. The Christchurch mass shooting video is incredibly graphic and shows the deaths of dozens of people and the New Zealand government wanted it banned because they believed it would inspire more mass shooters.
Whether banning the distribution of types of speech is a net good thing or not depends on what is banned, but fundamentally, Mike Lee's anti-porn law is just as constitutionally valid as the laws banning child porn. Production and distribution are two different things, banning production is constitutional even under the strictest interpretations, but banning distribution isn't and requires some shaky arguments that boil down to this thing should be banned because it is really, really, bad.
I don't think it's likely that porn will be banned due to the sheer number of coomers in society these days, but child porn could be legalized by a Democrat LGBT supporting judge who rules that pedophilia is a sexuality and banning the distribution and possession of child porn is an infringement on the speech rights of a protected class.
I hope this thread doesn't get derailed by an illiterate retard again.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
If they can remove porn's first-amendment protections without changing the first amendment, they can change whether or not other speech is protected without having a constitutional convention.
And of course there's no way to enforce a general porn ban on the internet without ridding the internet first of anonymity.
And of course there's no way to enforce a general porn ban on the internet without ridding the internet first of anonymity.
think this through. the dumbfuck who has the job you're pretending to have can't buy everything he needs either. he is bribeable. and I have all this coke!
- Status