A bill set to be introduced next month would ban consuming or producing sexual content and punish offenders with prison sentences of up to 20 years and $25,000 fines.

this country is so fucking cool

    • Xhieron@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1451·
      10 months ago

      My money says this guy can’t even close his closet door anymore for all the skeletons.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      701·
      10 months ago

      Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, loves talking about his creepy spy app he and his son have on their phone that alerts the other if they visit naughty sites. So the writers of this proposal and all that vote for it would be happy to put the same program on their devices and computers, right? And tie that straight to a public feed we can all see? Great Great.

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        4315·
        10 months ago

        See when I read this story it isn’t really that bad.

        They believe porn is bad and use the app to keep each other accountable. I don’t really have an issue with that. You do you.

        But when they start trying to enforce that view through the government it’s obviously not okay.

        • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
          611·
          10 months ago

          Aside from it being creepy as hell to do that with your son (who probably didn’t have a say in the matter) this is a massive national security risk. Spyware on a Congress member’s phone? Not a great idea.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            82·
            10 months ago

            I’m imagining they have government issued phones and private phones. The government issued one for sure wouldn’t be allowed to have that shit on it.

            • GTKashi@lemmy.world
              27·
              10 months ago

              That sounds reasonable and so it’s probably not even remotely close to what actually happens.

              • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
                14·
                10 months ago

                The craziest thing about the Hillary Clinton private email server was not that she had it, but that her predecessors also used private email for government stuff as Secretary of State. Not a one-off, but the norm. Absolutely nuts.

            • meco03211@lemmy.world
              16·
              10 months ago

              Can you imagine that IT request?

              “In having trouble installing this app on my phone. It’s so my phone can be remotely monitored to make sure I’m not looking at porn.”

              “Could you just not try to look at porn on that phone?”

              • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                7·
                10 months ago

                “Sir, you have a federal government IT department. Which federal agency do you want to tell your family if you watch porn? Don’t worry they already monitor your personal devices too.”

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              2·
              10 months ago

              Do you think Congress has the digital literacy and self discipline to keep separate phones and actually keep business separate between them?

              Wasn’t it just recently that a congressman was found hoarding gold bars? What phone do you think he negotiated those from?

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          321·
          10 months ago

          It’s creepy because it’s his son, and he clearly is only doing it to control his kid.

          You think the dad doesn’t have a second device that’s dedicated to wanking?

          • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            4·
            10 months ago

            How dare you demand him by suggesting he has a masturbation phone.

            It’s a Grindr phone…

            Which only feeds his toxicity as no one on Grindr wants anything to do with this PoS.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          8·
          10 months ago

          I don’t have a problem between 2 consenting adults but monitoring a parent is creepy and weird. It’s likely a case of him trying to set an example and prove he too is compliant, to his son, but it’s just weird.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            10·
            10 months ago

            Just watched the Duggar documentary. This is shit they “voluntarily” do. If you don’t, you’ll likely suffer the ire of the elders and people in power.

            • frickineh@lemmy.world
              8·
              10 months ago

              And, as we learned from that same documentary, it’s pretty easy to get around it. If that homeschooled sicko Josh can figure out how to partition his devices, I’m guessing plenty of others have figured it out, too.

        • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
          7·
          10 months ago

          I don’t have a problem with their abstaining from porn, having personal feelings about its value or morality, or even using each other to remain accountable. I do think it’s a little dumb to put spyware on your device intentionally and to share with your child when you accidentally fall to temptation exactly what sort of smut you enjoyed. But that’s all them. Not my problem.

          As you said the problem is when you’re legislating to restrict others from something you have a personal issue with, particularly when that thing is completely personal. So if they’re going to butt their way into the personal habits or desires of the general public, surely they have no problem sharing their own habits and desires with the public in return. And, in real time. I want to see what senators are jerking it to on their potty break during session.

      • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
        8·
        10 months ago

        creepy spy app

        The only thing that spy app is making them do, is hiding a second phone from everyone. Guarantee it.

        • rjthyen@lemm.ee
          84·
          10 months ago

          But the differences are slight. Maybe won’t go as far down the oppression of women rabbit hole, but not for lack of trying. Merely because, I hope, our society is to far past that for them to drag us back that far.

          • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            51·
            10 months ago

            Merely because, I hope, our society is to far past that for them to drag us back that far.

            These women in Iran just before the Islamic Revolution in 1979 probably thought they were too far past it, too.

              • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
                162·
                10 months ago

                Iran. Even if the British and American interference was abhorrent, an Islamic Fascist state wasn’t the only alternative they had.

                Putting all the agency (and therefore responsibility) in imperial powers is also a form of imperialism.

              • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
                143·
                10 months ago

                Iran caused that revolution. They were fed up with a leader seen as a western puppet so they replaced him with religious extremist.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        195·
        10 months ago

        We aren’t speaking Arabian. It’s like “naan bread”, sure, naan means bread but not in this language and we’ve lots of other breads…If you just say Rye a Canadian will hand you a glass of whisky not a loaf of bread.

        • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
          318·
          10 months ago

          That’s still a bad example. We don’t say that “I drive a XYZ car” since car is implied and we can just say “I drive a XYZ”

          Check with any XYZ standing for a manufacturer like Toyota, Tesla or a model like Corolla, 911, etc.

          If there’s enough understanding of the concept, no need for clarification. Everyone knows naan is a bread. Unless you are asking a question in Japanese, just drop the bread (and law for Sharia)

    • modifier@lemmy.ca
      541·
      10 months ago

      I don’t want to engage in slander, but just extrapolating from previous conservative projection, that guy has a 15 year-old Honduran boy chained in his laundry room.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    67·
    10 months ago

    Everyone involved in pushing this law should be barred from working in government, and fined for wasting our time.

    • Ozymati@lemmy.nz
      191·
      10 months ago

      Just let them pass it then search their browser history. You know the only reason they’re so concerned about it is they’re ball’s deep into it.

  • ryan213@lemmy.caEnglish
    681·
    10 months ago

    Let’s take bets on who’s getting caught first! Drag queens or some god-fearing dude??

    • Alto@kbin.social
      45·
      10 months ago

      Don’t pretend for a second itll actually be enforced against the in group

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    661·
    10 months ago

    I wish I didn’t live in my COMMUNIST blue state where I can freely watch porn, read books, receive healthcare, feed hungry kids, breath clean air, turn around in driveways without getting shot and an abortion if I or my 10 year old daughter gets RAPED! I would MUCH rather live in a Red State where it’s only legal to shoot homeless people, go to church and breath fumes from the coal plant next door unless it gets too cold and I freeze to death!

  • MenacingPerson@lemm.ee
    48·
    10 months ago

    FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🍟🍟🍟🍟🍟🍟

  • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
    45·
    10 months ago

    Taking bets on how long it takes (not if, but when) this man is hacked and found to be absorbed in the exact thing he’s trying to ban.

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      195·
      10 months ago

      They write articles about a bill some whacko proposed that has no chance of passing (and would be struck down in 5 minutes on first amendment grounds of it did) and pearl clutchers act like it’s the end of the world. Have you seen The People vs Larry Flint? That took place 60 years ago. This shit is nothing new.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        10 months ago

        a bill some whacko proposed that has no chance of passing

        A lot of the craziest shit in the lawbooks were things some whacko proposed “that has no chance of passing”.

        and would be struck down in 5 minutes on first amendment grounds of it did

        Current SCOTUS precedent is that the First Amendment does not protect porn if it contains “obscenity”. Specifically, any porn can be banned if it:

        1. Makes people uneasy
        2. Includes offensive sexual conduct - as decided by state law (?!?)
        3. “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”

        It’s called the Miller Test

        Notice the wording used in the proposed law. It’s already been pre-considered to have a solid chance of surviving a SCOTUS appeal. And the current SCOTUS wouldn’t dream of overriding Conservative jurisprudence.

        pearl clutchers act like it’s the end of the world

        Unfortunately, this is the type of anti-reactionary discussion that led to us being genuinely surprised when Roe v Wade got overturned. Clarence Thomas used the opportunity to signal that he would like to overturn Obergefell and Griswold as well. And he 100% has Barrett on his side and almost certainly has Kavanaugh. That means all he has to do is elbow Gorsuch and suck off Roberts and porn (and sex toys) could be illegal in some states, working towards a federal ban.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          10 months ago

          led to us being genuinely surprised when Roe v Wade got overturned.

          Speak for yourself. I was not surprised when roe v wade was overturned, in fact I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did. The court invented a right that they wanted to be there and declared it had been there all along. That is not the judicial branch’s job. Roe v wade should have been replaced with a law, drafted by legislators, by like 1976. 50 years of Democrats dropped the ball on this and now innocent women are paying the price.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            10 months ago

            The court invented a right that they wanted to be there and declared it had been there all along

            …here we go again. I feel like people bring this up without understanding it all the time. The Fundamental Right to Privacy used in Roe comes from Griswold, and is (and was) an absolutely defensible interpretation of the Constitution. Much of our jurisprudence comes from Common Law and Reading Between the Lines (which is different from inventing a right from scratch). If you have a right to do A and a right to do B, there is absolutely an argument that you have a right to do A#.

            More importantly, DOBBS AGREED. They just said “There is a right to privacy, but fetuses are special. Bubye Roe”.

            Roe v wade should have been replaced with a law, drafted by legislators, by like 1976

            …which SCOTUS could easily decide is Federal overreach. A lot of people have argued with me (convincingly) that the best foundations of such a law are still not unassailable. The argument that the Constitution allows the federal government to protect abortion is just weaker than the argument that the Constitution inherently protects abortion.

            50 years of Democrats dropped the ball on this and now innocent women are paying the price

            Roe was decided by a largely pro-life conservative Judiciary, and the Right to Privacy was the weaker of two protections behind a clear 14th Amendment protection. Passing a law protecting abortion in 1976 is like passing a law protecting the right to Pray in your own home, or a law that forbids prosecutors from executing suspects during the arraignment. This is one of those things we really cannot justify blaming the Democrats for.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                10 months ago

                Sorry I started with “here we go again”. In retrospect, it’s not fair to treat a person who makes an argument like they are the argument itself.

                It’s very common that I hear the “invented a right” complaint for Roe. There are a lot of valid criticisms for how jurisprudence works in America, but none of those valid criticisms started with Roe. Arguably they didn’t even fully start with Griswold, but the specific one in Roe did. People also often bring up Justice Ginsburg’s distaste for Roe. What they don’t understand (or conveniently forget) is that she was overridden in her 14th Amendment assertions by Justices that could be described as “Pro-life”, who came up with perhaps the most anti-choice interpretation of the Constitution as it was seen at that time. The “shaky ground” people talk about wasn’t Roe, but that Roe intentionally left a ton of room for states to add so-called “reasonable restrictions” on abortion, the kinds of restrictions the federal government would really struggle to justify limiting. If Oklahoma has a 3rd Trimester ban, get the abortion earlier or drive to a state without said ban. So long as they didn’t ban leaving the state to get an abortion, there’s not much for the federal government to write a law on.

    • ULS@lemmy.ml
      8·
      10 months ago

      Gen z, millennials, and The Gays. /S.

      Edit: sorry I forgot the The Blacks, and Hunter Bidens Laptop.