• admiralteal@kbin.social
    96·
    7 months ago

    It goes without saying that this absolutely will not pass constitutional muster.

    You can categorically try to ban pornography but the second you try to ban it based on its content and not based on it being pornography you no longer have a leg to stand on.

    I wish there were some way to have criminal consequences for deliberately passing unconstitutional laws. It definitely feels like it’s some kind of sedition, violating your implicit or explicit oath of office so profoundly.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      15·
      7 months ago

      That’s why it’s a civil matter. They ruled that civil suits don’t have to follow the Constitution.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        4·
        7 months ago

        That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard from them and they’re the current Supreme Court, I’ve heard a lot of dumb things from those motherfuckers

    • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      7 months ago

      IMO, as depressing as the thought is, we are rapidly transitioning/declining to a post-Constitution America. It makes sense, because conservatives have never really embraced the notion of a secular document as the law of the land, which can be used to shield individuals and minorities from their abusive moralistic patriarchal regimes. Now they have a chance, many chances in fact, to “right the wrongs” they suffered as a matter of enlightened compromise made in good faith. And we are seeing it everywhere.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      627·
      7 months ago

      Trump is going to be a presidential candidate and more than likely win, and you’re talking about constitutional muster.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      30·
      7 months ago

      Turning the kids gay obviously, and having a gay kid causes at least 50k in emotional damage to their parents. Or was that the parents emotionally damaging their children they don’t even try to understand?

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    52·
    7 months ago

    The language is so broad that a majority of popular internet media should just block out Kansas. It wouldn’t be long before the shit heads back track. Unfortunately, major media will probably just cater to the censorship like the cretins they are.

    • Neato@ttrpg.networkEnglish
      12·
      7 months ago

      Yeah. Every streaming company should instantly do it to avoid lawsuits. Then they VPN company should block Kansas because they could be held liable.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    7 months ago

    Imagine being the first teenager whose parents sue Pornhub because they walked in on you jerking off. The other high school kids would never stop razzing you over it.

  • leadore@kbin.social
    264·
    7 months ago

    It’s irritating how these articles always choose such misleading clickbait headlines.

    • First, a governor does not “pass laws”. The legislature does that. Then the governor can veto, sign, or do neither–in which case it passes by default. Our (KS) governor is a Democrat and has vetoed so many anti-LGBTQ+ and abortion restriction bills I’ve lost count. Unfortunately, the supermajority republican legislature has managed to override a bunch of her vetoes.

    • The other bill, the “ID required to view porn” bill is making the rounds through most red states. It’s not specifically about “acts of homosexuality”–that is one item in the list of what is considered “sexual content” in the bill. She did not sign that bill, but it will pass because she didn’t veto it either. It’ll be interesting to see (here and in the other states that passed this) what kind of “feedback” these legislators hear from their constituents who can no longer view their porn anonymously–or at all, if the sites stop operating in these states.

    • BirdEnjoyer@kbin.social
      71·
      7 months ago

      Well, as a nonsexual person, I’ve been pretty shocked to see that the allosexuals have been pretty much taking this porn ID stuff lying down.

      • AceCephalon@pawb.social
        2·
        7 months ago

        It’s interesting seeing “nonsexual” as opposed to “Asexual” or something like “Asexual Spectrum”, followed by “allosexual”.

        No offense intended or anything, just making mention for visibility.

        • BirdEnjoyer@kbin.social
          2·
          7 months ago

          Eh, plenty of ace people will engage in sexual activity, often for the sake of a romantic partner.

          I don’t/haven’t, so it seems easier to specify the one relevant label. You’re right in reading between the lines that I am ace.

          • AceCephalon@pawb.social
            1·
            7 months ago

            It’s quite nice seeing other Ace people around, AroAce myself.

            Also, that does make sense, I’ve just not really seen anyone use that term for it before now that I can recall.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      41·
      7 months ago

      There’s a term for it. I can only think of “pocket veto,” but that’s the opposite. It’s still allowing the bill to become law though

  • BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml
    16·
    7 months ago

    This could theoretically apply to family-friendly media with queer characters, LGBTQ+ charities and community resources, or even medical websites that include information on gender and sexuality.