this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
135 points (99.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2853 readers
1343 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] whyrat@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

No one remembers the lessons learned from prohibition?

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 21 hours ago

this "party of small government" really hates the first amendment?

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

REMINDER THAT ONLY ONE PARTY REMOVES RIGHTS.

And that's the party the majority of voting Americans voted for.

Hope you all enjoy this sinking ship.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 22 hours ago

Germany seems to be trying to remove the rights of the afd, but in general absolutely.

[–] philpo@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago

And then they will render all Anti-Trump talk obscene.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 71 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I say pornhub releases all DC IP addresses if it goes through.

[–] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They should release their search history and announce which of them have been banned as well, whether it goes through or not.

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago

Ted Cruz's history and time stamps sent to his family lol

[–] nick@midwest.social 14 points 2 days ago

God. if I worked there you can bet id work on that

[–] andrewth09@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago

This will bring down the price of eggs.

[–] taco@piefed.social 41 points 2 days ago (5 children)

The definition of obscenity necessitates a lack of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

This bill won't ban porn, it'll just make it all require a plot.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

so ao3 is probably fine

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 29 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If porn becomes a political issue (because one political group is far more likely to support it's prohibition than others), then technically, couldn't it be argued that creating and sharing it has political value as a protest of the effort to ban it, and therefore that it has political value inherently?

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago

This is a very fair point - my concern with the original definition is the word “serious”

[–] taco@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

I can see no fault in this logic.

[–] Mist101@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

If that's what you need to get there, no kink shame here.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's already some good plotlines. My favorite is the Lemon Stealing Whore. Tier S writing there.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 7 points 2 days ago

"This isn't a beach, this is a bathtub!"

[–] Gwen@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This bill is part of Project 2025 and the aim is to make it illegal to be a trans person.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

The end goal of project 2025 is to establish a Christian nationalist fascist government, strictly enforcing gender roles is just part of that

[–] mathic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So said the Supreme Court; so, too, can that Court change its mind.

[–] TaiCrunch@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Of course it's Mike Lee.

Fuck Mike Lee.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

Just don’t film it.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

With Marry "Hitler did nothing wrong" Miller as cosponsor.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Isn’t porn a staple of the religious conservative? I’m sure they will vote for this in the belief that it doesn’t apply to them.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, you’re thinking of gay porn. That won’t be illegal if you are just doing it for research.

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Oh, you better believe they’ll have ‘religious (Christian) exemptions’ to laws, carved out under the guise of using ‘freedom of religion’ as a defense from gov’t control. Just like they already do for molesting choir and altar boys.

[–] Gowron_Howard@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Losing the incel vote probably won’t work out for their numbers.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So many incels are no fap though or were recruited through Christian nationalist pastors

[–] Gowron_Howard@lemm.ee 3 points 5 hours ago

Sure, but do you honestly believe they’re telling the truth?

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

I guarantee this douchebag has a very weird search history on pornhub. Like amputee clown porn. Or latex and animals. It’s something odd. I mean if that’s your thing and it’s legal go for it. But something that would cause a lot of pearl clutching if it was made public.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Why not just require ISPs to block it? That’s what many countries do without having to go through the trouble of criminalizing and prosecuting the consumers.

I don’t agree with the spirit or purpose of the law nor with banning or criminalizing. But one is less harmful than the other.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because the point is to be able to enforce it arbitrarily. To be able to Target specific people and groups. Being harmful is the point.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago

Need every possible excuse to send people to El Salvador

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

But one is less harmful than the other.

Lol. We're talking about the Republican party. Their fetish is to hurt Americans. And American's fetish is to be hurt by them.

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemm.ee 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Meat for the base, this will go no where

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 4 points 15 hours ago

No, I think it’s time we started taking shit seriously. Clearly laughing and brushing it off, being in denial, hasn’t been a good strategy for us collectively

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They said that about abortion or DEI

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

And draining the swamp, deporting illegals, etc. Where in a new world where the Bill of Rights and constitutionally mandated agencies aren’t protected from the Executive’s and oligarch’s wrecking ball / grift.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Porn is part of my religion.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 13 points 2 days ago

I will also join this religion.

[–] curiousPJ@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

See you in prison everyone!

[–] frezik@midwest.social 9 points 2 days ago

Probably this doesn't even come up for vote.

In the event it does, well, they just went to war with the biggest streaming platform independent of Google. Do they have any idea how much muscle PornHub has if they were so inclined?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

This exists purely to put the opponents of the bill on the side defending porn.

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Land of the Free

[–] railcar@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago

Thank the good Lord, I get so bothered when I see a woman's ankles.

[–] nick@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago

That’s definitely going to work. And not a huge fucking waste of time or money.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 day ago

Click here to read exclusive coverage from The Daily Caller

Hmmmm

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

So all the porn actors will move to Canada?

load more comments
view more: next ›