|
Forums >
General Industry >
Oklahoma Bill Could Ban Nude Photos
"An Oklahoma anti-porn bill could outlaw any sort of sexualized image — pornographic or not — and ban sending nude photographs outside of marriage." https://petapixel.com/2024/01/23/an-okl … hotograph/ Jan 23 24 09:48 am Link Define "sexualised image". Define “serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value.” my take, the law will be unenforceable and runs afoul of basic protections covered by the constitution. that said.... I'm sure the state will ruin a few lives trying to enforce the "morality" of it all. Jan 23 24 11:30 am Link Seems like there was a battle at the Supreme Court with some guy named Larry Flint a while back about something like that. Jan 23 24 12:43 pm Link Is it any surprise? Isn't this a natural progression of book bans? Oklahoma, fifth highest state for porn consumption: https://www.cnbc.com/2009/07/14/Top-US- … raphy.html "[The] Bill 1976 seeks to define a new category of largely prohibited content called “unlawful pornography,”" which includes about every conceivable expression which could be described as pornography by the people with the smallest conceivable embrace of the arts and sciences? Of course, there will be an exception for material which has “serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value." That is like saying abortion in Texas is legal to save a mother's life, which is offered until it is too late to matter. There will be no exceptions. https://petapixel.com/2024/01/23/an-okl … hotograph/ Each state we looked at had their unique blend of kinks and fetishes. By adding up the search values for each kink, we determined which had the most investment in their kinks. Here are the top 10, based on the combined search value: Perhaps the honorable senator from Oklahoma expressed a problem right on the tip of his tongue?. Jan 23 24 01:09 pm Link Znude! wrote: One could've said the same thing about Roe, but the current Supreme Court has shown that precedent is irrelevant in some cases. Jan 23 24 01:09 pm Link Znude! wrote: Supreme Court? What Supreme Court? The one stacked with zealots from a list from the Federalist Society? The one that will be gutted by the guy running on the platform of being a dictator if elected or if he is successful in his next coup attempt? The one that we will have once it becomes legal for a president to assassinate political opponents? Jan 23 24 01:12 pm Link Oh dear, more retarded uselessness from people who should really know better. Do they think they can they dis-invent the internet and nuclear weapons as well as photography? I can support hard line policies on drugs, because that's something that clearly has a negative effect on society, most crime is drug-related. So you can make a case for saying that if someone sells or deals hard drugs, they should die. Jan 24 24 04:32 am Link Sharia law lobbyists in OK? The guy does have a beard. Jan 24 24 08:05 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Totally off-topic as usual, but go ahead. Make the case. Love to hear it. Jan 24 24 01:25 pm Link Banning it “outside of marriage” won’t hold up under legal challenge. You can’t say something like that is legal for married couples but no one else. Jan 24 24 03:35 pm Link Obviously non constitutional on many grounds and stupid from a political POV Comparison with Roe is IMO flawed in that many that supported the decision thought it a flawed decision on legal points and that included RGB at the time Jan 24 24 05:06 pm Link They would have little chance of enforcing such a law successfully even if they employed an army of people to do it. Any serious attempt to enforce it could result in their legal system being backed up with cases for several years. Jan 25 24 05:49 am Link If I went back in time and showed people the current landscape of where we are politically, socially, etc. Im sure the vast majority would say "no way that could happen here". ! Hubris and overconfidence in a system that has a history like our is a bit shortsighted ? When executive Order 9066 was dropped I bet many said, "That's totally Unconstitutional, no way they can enforce this." Look what happened. Check and Balances...complete failure. Jan 25 24 06:24 am Link Should this bill be passed into law the proper response would be to start targeting the lawmakers who passed it. I'm pretty sure that Law enforcement, the media, or hackers will be able to find evidence of the lawmakers in question violating their own law. Jan 25 24 06:52 am Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: Many more were in favor. Roosevelt himself had a history of anti Asian-American prejudice. Despite "No Japanese-American citizen or Japanese national residing in the United States was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage," the Order was not officially terminated until 1976 by Gerald Ford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 Jan 25 24 09:07 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Q. What do you do if there's something you don't like and want to ban, but you can't define it properly? Jan 25 24 09:47 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Pretty dumb reason not to pass a law. FYI The backlog already exists, Jan 27 24 08:39 am Link The goal of Republicans these days seems to be to fulfill the desire to institute a government that squashes freedoms and demands moral and social ideology that most of the people of the country have demonstrated they do not want through the popular vote. History has indicated that such a government would require strict law enforcement with secret police being ready to pounce on their neighbors and enrich their friends. Is it more desirable to have the White faux-Christian Nationalist enforce their version of Sharia Law? Such an internal spy organization was developing in this country back in the Hoover FBI, but Americans dismantled much of it as they chose the consequences of freedom over oppression. We have seen this paragon of secret police under the communists and the fascist. "At its height, the Securitate [Romania] employed some 11,000 agents and had half a million informers for a country with a population of 22 million by 1985. Under CeauÈ™escu, the Securitate was one of the most brutal secret police forces in the world, responsible for the arrests, torture, and deaths of thousands of people."[1] The security enforcers enriched themselves and maintain that wealth for themselves and their successor generations. "Today, nine security services, the heirs of the Securitate colossus, operate behind the scenes in Romania, or, in some cases, openly – to manipulate politics and enrich their members at the expense of ordinary Romanians." As a result the security forces that existed before the 1989 fight for democracy in Romania shot and killed 940 people for protesting. Despite the call for democracy and freedom from the people, Romania remains a state with an extreme security budget and an intrusive secret police force. [2] Chinese friends who live in America and Laos have begun to tell me that China is reverting back to the old ways where people inform the authorities of the activities of their neighbors, and a significant Chinese communication platform, WeChat, is not a safe space to talk as it is heavily monitored by the government. In 1989 the people of China were also crying out for greater freedoms. It resulted in the murder of thousands of civilians at Tiananmen Square and other locations and the arrest of multides as the Tiananmen Square protest had spread around the country. Instead of greater freedom, government "reaction to the protests set limits on political expression in China that have lasted up to the present day."[3] The parallels are frightening. Red states, as did the Red States of China and Russia, have moved to limit freedoms regarding protests, defining many peaceful protests as criminal, and increasing the severity of the penalty. Red states have moved to suppress the votes of the people less likely to vote to embellish the power of the right. Red states and red governments have moved to diminish the First Amendment freedoms of the people through book bans and censorship, as illustrated by this thread. In a move similar to what the Chinese Communists did, the American Insurrectionist of 2020-21 have attempted to rename and redefine their heavy handed tactics. "The Chinese government has used numerous names for the event since 1989. As the events unfolded, it was labeled a "counterrevolutionary rebellion", which was later changed to simply "riot", followed by "political turmoil" and "1989 storm".[3] A sex offender, as determined by jury, who is also known for bemoaning that he couldn't simply order peaceful protestors around St. John's to be shot, and he sullenly had to settle for the use of tear gas and riot control measures to move peaceful protestors away from his chosen site for a photo op, has obviously already expressed a desire for the heavy handed methods of the communists and regimes with the worst human rights records on the planet. (Their wasn't a single Bible in the White House he could use for his propaganda ploy and take the pic in the Oval Office?) Worse yet is the outright calls and campaign strategy by the leading Republican contender for his party's nomination for president, to implement a government which will permit him to eschew democracy for a day to disregard and dismantle the work of democracy and the will of the people according to his dictates. We all know that such an improper undertaking cannot be accomplished in a day, so a dictatorship for a moment will result in a dictatorship for decades, with the support of ideologically staked courts and the continuation of daily propaganda pronouncements labeling good as evil and evil as good. As mentioned by our colleagues, such a law as proposed in Oklahoma, where "the wavin’ wheat can sure smell sweet,"[5] is virtually unenforceable on a grand scale. What then, would be the logical next step except a secret police force and a land of informants who will squeal to the authorities for each true or false perceived slight of new laws which limit our freedoms of expression? There will be no more women in bikinis on our beaches, nor their photos in our cell phones. Perhaps we will all be required to have a phone wallpaper of trump with his fist raised- as he so often does, like the communists of 1924 in Germany and henceforth. ("The raised fist, or the clenched fist, is a long-standing image of mixed meaning, often a symbol of solidarity, especially with a political movement. It is a common symbol representing a wide range of political ideologies, most notably socialism, communism, anarchism, ...."[4]) God bless America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitate [2) https://balkaninsight.com/2021/02/03/lo … to-riches/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tian … d_massacre [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_fist [5] https://rodgersandhammerstein.com/song/ … /oklahoma/ Jan 27 24 10:46 am Link I am sure the Admin means well but this reads as a frustration to me that s many of my images that show NOTHING a bit back got labeled mature by the MM bots including one that won POTD but now is clearly to naughty. Perhaps they reside in Oklahoma? Jan 31 24 02:30 am Link Znude! wrote: This is a very different supreme court. I don't put anything pass them. Mar 30 24 09:37 am Link Model Mayhem Edu wrote: I don't think Hollywood would let that happen. OR there would be few movies available in the state. Hell, all the streaming services would have to reduce their catalog of films and TV shows. No Spartacus, True Blood, etc. Mar 30 24 09:40 am Link JSouthworth wrote: That's cute. People thought there was no way the Roe decision would be reversed yet here we are. Never underestimate the power of groups of stupid people to fuck shit up for everyone. Mar 30 24 10:07 am Link Only American politicians are ignorant enough to believe they can legislate morality. Mar 30 24 01:41 pm Link Model Mayhem Edu wrote: Wow! The way this reads it would become a felony to watch most R-rated movies. Mar 30 24 02:31 pm Link Jefferson Cole wrote: Well the levels of stupidity they aspire to are staggering! Mar 30 24 03:02 pm Link |
