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

United States | News & Politics

3015 readers
1161 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
[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 74 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 10 points 1 month ago

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

[–] nick@midwest.social 14 points 1 month ago

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

[–] taco@piefed.social 43 points 1 month 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.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 30 points 1 month 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?

[–] Mist101@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

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

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

I can see no fault in this logic.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Gwen@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

so ao3 is probably fine

[–] TaiCrunch@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Of course it's Mike Lee.

Fuck Mike Lee.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

Just don’t film it.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago
[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

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

[–] andrewth09@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago

This will bring down the price of eggs.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 36 points 1 month 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 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month 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.

[–] Gowron_Howard@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] Gowron_Howard@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Eat_Your_Paisley@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Meat for the base, this will go no where

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They said that about abortion or DEI

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month 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

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Porn is part of my religion.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 14 points 1 month ago

I will also join this religion.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 1 month 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 10 points 1 month ago

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

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Land of the Free

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

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

[–] nick@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago

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

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

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

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

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

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month 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.

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] curiousPJ@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

See you in prison everyone!

[–] goferking0 3 points 1 month ago

Click here to read exclusive coverage from The Daily Caller

Hmmmm

[–] whyrat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No one remembers the lessons learned from prohibition?

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

So all the porn actors will move to Canada?

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

guess we gonna see exactly what all that onlyfans money is gonna do

[–] HowAbt2morrow@futurology.today 1 points 1 month ago

They’re gonna send a lot of folks to CECOCK in El Salvador.