Republicans are drunk with power. What a stupid fucking idea. There’s no chance of banning porn. Then they wouldn’t be able to jerk to Trans women and feel shame after.

Trans women are hot, in case that reads as though the shame is correct. It’s not.

  • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Pretty sure obscenity has to include actual people or at least be photo realistic enough to not be able to tell the difference.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It definitely does not. Look up Boiled Angel; I think that case was an absolute fucking travesty, but as of right now, it’s still good case law.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Just read through that whole thing and it made my blood boil. I don’t even know what it included, and it doesn’t matter. Drawings, especially those pointing out issues in society, should not be jailable. Fucking ridiculous.

        And the judge that claimed that even if they were commentary on society, he should use a better vehicle? Who the fuck is he to say what art is? If he acknowledges it is commentary on society, it shouldn’t fucking matter to a court how the drawings portrayed it.

    • Zenith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      That would still cover porn in general and things like deep fakes wouldn’t it?

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Only if they otherwise meet the definition of obscenity (talking about current law). Like has been said the definition is somewhat vague (deliberately so), but there have been some things that have been ruled not to be, including art and most porn.