| There are 9 comments on this blog. |
|
|
typically he ok and very smart
but the porn shit. GTFO 
already very very pissed off with the fucking ESG bullshit and what they did to porn and VR
took all the good stuff away.
i had been a member of one VR site... thought it was easy case to be member each and every year... but i honestly can't see anything good anymore.
maybe there is one or two clip per week? if that. and they add a few hundred per month
i did like the FREE aspect of it all.... VS the CAM girl options
|
|
|
Usually, those who bang their zealot pulpits & try to shame spicy content, have the biggest skeletons in their closet. I wonder what's in his, besides the 36 ct case of Coke/Pepsi?
|
|
|
What's next? The return of the Prohibition Era? hahahaha
|
|
|
Just remember many of you voted for this project 2025 BS. Now you have to live with it, and except that sites like this may be eliminated.
|
|
|
1984
|
|
|
This is the modern day GOP. White Supremacists, Evangelicals, billionaires, misogynists, racists and Conservatives all under the same roof. When they took away Roe v Wade, Thomas said out loud that he wasn’t stopping there. MAGA doesn’t care until it affects them. Then they cry like bitches and blame it all on the Democrats. GDP and Stock Market climbed under Biden. Didn’t take long for the Mandarin Mussolini to crash both. Stock Market has bounced back, but it’s still down from when he took office. It’s going to be a rocky road ahead though.
|
|
|
As Popeye from Blood In Blood Out said, “Tell him to suck his pee pee!”
|
|
|
Harpooner, you're over the top here. While Lee seeks an expansion, the definition here does not include your Playboys, internet websites (as long as not under the definiation of obsccene), etc.
Appealing to the prurient interest, in the context of obscenity law, refers to a shameful or morbid interest in sexual matters, nudity, or excretion. Legally speaking, it's a key element in determining whether material is considered obscene.
Legal Definitions as follows:
Obscenity: Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.
Miller Test: The Miller test, established in the case Miller v. California, defines obscenity as material that:
- Appeals to the prurient interest.
- Depicts or describes patently offensive sexual conduct.
- Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Prurient Interest: This element of the Miller test refers to a morbid or shameful interest in sexual
- matters, as opposed to a normal, healthy interest.
This has been well settled law since Miller v. California in 1973. While Lee now seeks to expand it to include possession and not just display or dissemination, it doesn't go as far as you try to purport that it does.
Now if you have German "scheisse" videos, they might get banned. Sexual assault and torture videos. Pictures or video depicting sex acts with smaller and less experienced humans, etc. Those might all be included. But your typical porn, websites, etc., not included. Not the end of the world by any stretch, but because of a slippery slope argument, I would likely vote against the bill.
|
|
|
Some people put way too much faith in politicians. It would seem if they’re red all is good, and blue is bad, a simplistic view. How about the idea they all are corrupt and only focus on what is best for themselves and what gimmicks will help them get reelected. Wait and see how many want to come out with their own meme coins and make $1.9 B for themselves. But for now they look for hot button issues to draw attention to their focus.
Remember Craigslist personals were wiped out in the tramps first term and without any checks and balances the sky’s the limit in this one.
|
| There are 9 comments on this blog. |
