Posted on 01/15/2025 5:09:50 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Titles....
There was an NFL player in the days of dvd rentals who was obstinate about not paying his heavy fines for non return of a number of “adult” films. The store retaliated by releasing the titles in a press release which rock DJs read over the air for laughs. “Suburban Housewife Hookers” and similar. None were on the Academy Awards final list.
The government is the problem with this. They will overreach and use it as a stepping stone to bigger controls. This is exactly how China implemented their draconian internet control. first it was porn, then it was political speech, then it was religion, then it was anything and everything the government deemed as a threat to their control.
Congress already almost passed a law that would require real ID to use any and every community site on the internet even the FR. And you can bet that if the Supreme court opens the door for this for any reason at all it will set precedent for them to pass that universal internet ID requirement.
While it is not moral the danger here is not porn, the real danger is setting the precedent for government to take over the whole internet and require real ID to participate everywhere on the net including here. Just the logistics alone might be too overwhelming for most platforms to handle and they will just shut down.
Can’t anyone see this is just the first domino of far many that will get knocked over if this precedent is set? Does anyone actually believe the government will not exploit it and expand it to everything they think is unsafe for kids including hunting forums, firearm forums, political forums, and religion?
The negative end result far far outweighs the minimal rewards.
Is anyone actually fool enough to believe the government will stop at just porn? No... It will expand to require real ID for every site on the internet. They already almost passed that requirement. It is an absolute sure bet that if you give them an inch they will take a mile every time.
The voting age is set by the Constitution.
Driving and drinking are not speech.
The problem here is pornography was deemed “speech” back in some lawsuit with the Penthouse publisher. They’d have to change this precedent to not do exactly what I said.
If they do not, expect age requirements for Freerepublic coming soon. And the only way to verify age is verify identity. The ultimate goal is to chill political speech they don’t like.
“If they do not, expect age requirements for Freerepublic coming soon. And the only way to verify age is verify identity. The ultimate goal is to chill political speech they don’t like.”
Exactly right. Which will be archived in a 3rd party database that can be breached and compromised. And you think the government will not have access to this data?
Of course they will, that is the cherry on top...
Sears catalogs were a thing back in the day.
Agreed—this is classic camel’s nose under the tent.
If you don’t defend liberties you don’t like you will lose liberties you do like.
Porn Websites = For those Who Can’t Get Lucky
Very well said... Good quote.
My strong opinion is the following: Any civil servant unable to explain the categorical difference between pornography and free speech should be mandated to complete a 12 week course on it and score 80% or higher on a 500
question multiple choice final exam. The exam will be timed, although registered democrats will be allowed to have double the allotted time.
See post #209.
The exam mentioned in post #209 will have questions directly related to your philosophy as discussed yesterday and outlined below.
1. the Bible is the same thing as pornography
2. the role of pornography in 1776 was the same as it is today
3. leftists make flawed arguments, so we should be afraid of them and acquiesce to their anti-American agenda
Failure to pass the course will lead to termination from any current government employment, and prohibition from working in any government job at any level.
I don’t disagree with you, but the SCOTUS ruled on this issue repeatedly, and we lost every time.
So we must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Like with Roe v Wade?
No, that was really pulled out of thin air.
The first amendment jurisprudence was based on sound principles, even if we disagree with them.
A lot is based on the reasoning that has been good for conservatives fighting government censorship, such as cases where Covid sceptics were punished.
The hard part about the first amendment is you have to let completely gross and sick people have their say. You can ignore them, but they can spout off to whomever wants to see it hear their grossness.
That is your opinion, but the Founding Fathers disagree with you. That’s all that matters. They knew porn and they didn’t make a clause dealing with it. Whatever their thoughts on porn were, they didn’t want the government to deal with it.
From a point of law, the Bible is simply a book with words, and sometimes pictures. They only issue, under the law, is whether the Bible complies with the law or not. If the Bible contravenes the law that you desire to deal with porn, it will be dealt in the same manner as porn.
I don’t know why this is aspect is beyond you.
No, the Bible will never be dealt with in any manner by the lowlife communists and other globalists.
The Bible is the Living Word of God.
The point is that any erroneous ruling by previous, compromised Supreme Court justices can be discarded by later, uncompromised justices.
Pornography is not free speech. Pornography is not “having their say.”
It doesn’t take a genius to see this. It only takes a court ruled by justices who haven’t been blackmailed or unlawfully installed.
In fact, we should renew the focus on the question of pornography and free speech.
Ironically, the communists and other globalists will try as hard as they can to shut down this kind of discussion.
Even though some people in dark corners and alleyways might have passed around tattered shreds of cartoon naked women, nobody had access to pornography in the time of the founding fathers.
The number one talking point of the anti-American globalists is that it was just as available as it is in our time.
The founders would disagree with you. Our Constitution is not a suicide document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.