Y'all Qaeda and the Talibangelicals at it again.
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
239 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3318 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I love that name. Talibangelicals.
Imagine being the first teenager whose parents sue Pornhub because they walked in on you jerking off. The other high school kids would never stop razzing you over it.
Dude, you’d get shit for that in the nursing home
It's irritating how these articles always choose such misleading clickbait headlines.
-
First, a governor does not "pass laws". The legislature does that. Then the governor can veto, sign, or do neither--in which case it passes by default. Our (KS) governor is a Democrat and has vetoed so many anti-LGBTQ+ and abortion restriction bills I've lost count. Unfortunately, the supermajority republican legislature has managed to override a bunch of her vetoes.
-
The other bill, the "ID required to view porn" bill is making the rounds through most red states. It's not specifically about "acts of homosexuality"--that is one item in the list of what is considered "sexual content" in the bill. She did not sign that bill, but it will pass because she didn't veto it either. It'll be interesting to see (here and in the other states that passed this) what kind of "feedback" these legislators hear from their constituents who can no longer view their porn anonymously--or at all, if the sites stop operating in these states.
Well, as a nonsexual person, I've been pretty shocked to see that the allosexuals have been pretty much taking this porn ID stuff lying down.
It's interesting seeing "nonsexual" as opposed to "Asexual" or something like "Asexual Spectrum", followed by "allosexual".
No offense intended or anything, just making mention for visibility.
Eh, plenty of ace people will engage in sexual activity, often for the sake of a romantic partner.
I don't/haven't, so it seems easier to specify the one relevant label. You're right in reading between the lines that I am ace.
It's quite nice seeing other Ace people around, AroAce myself.
Also, that does make sense, I've just not really seen anyone use that term for it before now that I can recall.
There’s a term for it. I can only think of “pocket veto,” but that’s the opposite. It’s still allowing the bill to become law though
It goes without saying that this absolutely will not pass constitutional muster.
You can categorically try to ban pornography but the second you try to ban it based on its content and not based on it being pornography you no longer have a leg to stand on.
I wish there were some way to have criminal consequences for deliberately passing unconstitutional laws. It definitely feels like it's some kind of sedition, violating your implicit or explicit oath of office so profoundly.
IMO, as depressing as the thought is, we are rapidly transitioning/declining to a post-Constitution America. It makes sense, because conservatives have never really embraced the notion of a secular document as the law of the land, which can be used to shield individuals and minorities from their abusive moralistic patriarchal regimes. Now they have a chance, many chances in fact, to "right the wrongs" they suffered as a matter of enlightened compromise made in good faith. And we are seeing it everywhere.
That's why it's a civil matter. They ruled that civil suits don't have to follow the Constitution.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard from them and they’re the current Supreme Court, I’ve heard a lot of dumb things from those motherfuckers
Motion to limit porn in Kansas exclusively to the pegging category. Do I have a second?
parents are allowed to sue for damages of at least $50,000.
what fucking damages?
Child support if their queer child survives their teen years
Turning the kids gay obviously, and having a gay kid causes at least 50k in emotional damage to their parents. Or was that the parents emotionally damaging their children they don't even try to understand?
Conversion therapy and troubled teen camps ain't cheap (/s)
Whatever make people have more kids for the great meat grinder.. this include trying to avoid people being gay.
heterosexual sodomy is still all good right. right!
Well obviously... and by heterosexual sodomy I assume you're talking about the kind involving strap-ons.
No! Every sperm is sacred...
Okay, so it needs to be a threesome? One to peg, the other to "receive"? One person to bring them all and in the darkness bind them (for a BDSM foursome)?
Lemmy soon to become illegal in Kansas 😔
This could theoretically apply to family-friendly media with queer characters, LGBTQ+ charities and community resources, or even medical websites that include information on gender and sexuality.
Meanwhile, adult baby and furry sex fetish vids are still free /facepalm.
All sexual conduct is covered under this law. The issue is they broadly defined “homosexuality” as sexual conduct
The people for this legislation are adult babies, and not even in the fun ways.
Of course they are. Republicans aren't tempted by those kinds of porn.
Bet
The language is so broad that a majority of popular internet media should just block out Kansas. It wouldn't be long before the shit heads back track. Unfortunately, major media will probably just cater to the censorship like the cretins they are.
Yeah. Every streaming company should instantly do it to avoid lawsuits. Then they VPN company should block Kansas because they could be held liable.
Every cable channel, every top 100 website