We're going to see a lot more of these challenges to SCOTUS precedent in the coming years. The Dobbs decision was them stating loud and clear that they will find any excuse to justify their prefud8ced decisions.
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
403 points (98.6% liked)
News
23852 readers
3548 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
it's so shocking that the right-wing's commitment to free speech was entirely performative and predicated on no principle whatsoever
Yes.... Shocking... I am shocked
Ain't the point of a right that it's protected from the government?
That’s why it goes through the courts
Noooo haha we we can't fix your real problems that you want us to fix because of how we think some witch hunter in the 1600s relates to the constitution, and politics is just hard and moves slow :(
Anyway, here, we shitcanned the constitution for something pretty much nobody asked for and won't actually fix anything. Enjoy <3
I'm calling it right now. They use this as first amendment cover for TikTok.
You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being to think of sex as bad.
What an absolute sign of weakness.
You don't have to think sex is bad to think porn is bad for children and teens.
This Texas law and others like it are bullshit, but making strawman arguments about them isn't helping anything.
Or, and hear me out on this one, you're a member of a group, like various other groups, that want to control every aspect of human lives, including sex, to bind them to our little group forever so we can control them even more?
You gotta be a really profoundly uncomfortable, nervous human being
That's an interesting way to say "religious".
Project2025 and it's evangelical backers are a major driver of this prudishness.
They're godsdamned freaks is what they are. Their religion says sex is disgusting and evil. Mine says it's holy and pleasure is sacred. But neither of us should get to decide the law based on what gods we got. I know that. Jewish Americans know that. Hindu Americans know that. Muslim Americans know it too. And I ain't seen Buddhists trying to ban alcohol in any city in America, nor shinto folks trying to divert public school money to preaching about amaterasu. Turns out it's just the Christians round here who don't get that when your religion says you can't do something it means you don't get to do it, but the rest of us are more than free to.
Kids are gonna start finding porn the old-fashioned way: randomly coming across discarded magazines at the park. That was my first experience.
"Woods" or "Field" porn was surprising common. I was honestly surprised to hear that was so many of my friends (and my) introduction to porn.
Good luck finding a magazine anywhere any more. I assume they can still find it online from random small websites, like in the old days.
I was kind of just pointing out that a lot of kids don't go out looking for porn. Porn somehow just shows up because adults are irresponsible.
Or torrents... It would be funny if this just ended up teaching new generations how to torrent.
I think Epstein highlighted that there is a much bigger problem going on than some 15 year old looking up “mum gets railed by football team”.
Too bad he's not around to testify. They did a great job of murdering him behind bars.
If we're banning content harmful to children why dont we start with Capitalist propoganda and religious indoctrination :3
And those brain washing shows on YouTube
*rotting
Both are accurate
The vague threat of "think of the children maybe being exposed to sexual things" challenging our first amendment right but it becomes some huge debate if a woman is being harassed/stalked/threatened online.
**they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings **
they are justififying destroying our rights for their feelings
Well yeah, the P stands for Projection in the party of "facts don't care about your feelings."
So we can ban content that is claimed to be harmful to minors but not weapons that actually kill children...
Jfc when you put it that way
Even in terms of speech, it's ridiculous to claim that boobs are more harmful than a social media diet of assholes claiming women or racial minorities aren't people.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Notice how we're already asking past the sale with the tacit labeling of "sexual material harmful to minors," with the presupposed declaration that sexual material is automatically harmful to minors.
The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority. This is well known, and none of us came off any the worse despite widespread availability of older brothers' back issues of Hustler, Usenet, dial-up BBS systems, and ultimately the world wide web.
If teens weren't naturally interested in sex where wouldn't been all them teenage pregnancies. Q.E.D.
The all-consuming mission to look at boobies is essentially universal for all pubescent boys from about 12 all the way to the age of majority.
Not true. Some boys also want to look at dicks.
And some genuinely could care less about looking at either.
And some girls want to look at boobies, too.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Get ready for the slippery slope. Anything conservatives don’t want you to see or read will be placed behind an “identify yourself” firewall.
view more: next ›