Utah block porn

[PaleoEuropean]

Porn is illegal in the U.S, anything defined as Pornography in a legal sense is illegal, the problem is they don't know how to define it. One lawmaker said "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it" he might have said obscenity but I cant remember exactly. The law has never changed, it's just not enforced. But rest assured pornography is illegal in all 50 states.

[Kivan]

That's an aberration against free speech and freedom in general.

No one has the right of forbid what others see in internet regardless of content or control the private life of others.

[Parça do Neymar]

Well, the porn industry is directly and indirectly responsible for the emergence of many creepy paraphilias among its consumers, but this is an affront to personal liberty. Regardless of the intentions, I cannot agree with this.

[Hasien]

Porn is illegal in the U.S, anything defined as Pornography in a legal sense is illegal, the problem is they don't know how to define it. One lawmaker said "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it" he might have said obscenity but I cant remember exactly. The law has never changed, it's just not enforced. But rest assured pornography is illegal in all 50 states.

California and Florida has a lot porn industries buddy.

[PaleoEuropean]

California and Florida has a lot porn industries buddy.

They both also have large illegal drug industries, like I said obscenity laws aren't enforced, just like federal drug laws aren't enforced.

[PaleoEuropean]

That's an aberration against free speech and freedom in general.

No one has the right of forbid what others see in internet regardless of content or control the private life of others.

The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not free speech. In most places even wearing a thong at the beach or to the river is illegal if its too revealing.


"In the 1957 case of Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed the view that obscenity lacks First Amendment protection. The Court defined obscene speech as being "utterly without redeeming social importance" in which "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." However, for the next sixteen years the Supreme Court was unable to reach a definition of obscenity that satisfied a majority of its members. A new standard was finally established in the case of Miller v. California, decided in June 1973, which upheld the conviction of a man for violating a California obscenity law against sending a mass mailing advertisement featuring sexual pictures and drawings. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1969 and served as chief justice until 1986, wrote the deciding opinion, joined by four others. Burger established a three-part test to define obscenity as material that appealed to prurient interest, portrayed sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way," and did not have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Excerpts from Burger's opinion are found in the following selection."



https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/leg...ines-obscenity

[Aldaris]

Porn is illegal in the U.S, anything defined as Pornography in a legal sense is illegal, the problem is they don't know how to define it. One lawmaker said "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it" he might have said obscenity but I cant remember exactly. The law has never changed, it's just not enforced. But rest assured pornography is illegal in all 50 states.

That's the main problem in law. Too formal? The trials can take years and are not guaranteed to reach a conclusion because of attorneys abusing formal loopholes ad-infinitum. Too informal? An innocent guy gets his hand chopped off without a proper trial. The US, aswell as all the other Western countries, cling to the former paradigm, but when something's obvious, it's obvious, and there's no need to beat around the bush. Any state attorney should be able to prepare his charges quite smoothly and beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

[PaleoEuropean]

That's the main problem in law. Too formal? The trials can take years and are not guaranteed to reach a conclusion because of attorneys abusing formal loopholes ad-infinitum. Too informal? An innocent guy gets his hand chopped off without a proper trial. The US, aswell as all the other Western countries, cling to the former paradigm, but when something's obvious, it's obvious, and there's no need to beat around the bush. Any state attorney should be able to prepare his charges quite smoothly and beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

That is the issue with Bureaucracy vs Logic. People don't know how to think for themselves anymore, even those we elect to think for us.

[PaleoEuropean]

That's an aberration against free speech and freedom in general.

No one has the right of forbid what others see in internet regardless of content or control the private life of others.

The internet is subject to law just as Television is. The issue is that unlike TV which is controlled via radio waves/satellite bands, the internet is just a series of connected servers. They can easily track down someone pirating radio frequencies, it's next to impossible to do that with the internet unless you have a controlled network like China, which still can't wholly censor it's internet.

[Celestia]

Tbh I don’t really see the point of this.

There’s onlyfans and chicks posting half naked photos and videos of themselves on their social media.. I don’t see how this is really going to prevent 12 year olds from perversion unless their parents control and limit all aspects of their internet use (which is what they should be doing from the get-go)