for instance, pornography has a level of scrutiny from otherwise-liberal individuals (typically younger americans) as a net-negative for society and wish to see its erasure. to a degree, i agree with the sentiment that there is little benefit derived from the consumption of porn. 2/12 - ThreadSky | a Reddit-style client for Bluesky

demeterjaw.bsky.social • 2 days ago

for instance, pornography has a level of scrutiny from otherwise-liberal individuals (typically younger americans) as a net-negative for society and wish to see its erasure. to a degree, i agree with the sentiment that there is little benefit derived from the consumption of porn. 2/12

Comments

demeterjaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

however, i cannot agree to the erasure or banning of pornography. obscenity laws still exist and weasel their way into contemporary legislation, which form a direct path to further censorship. transphobic legislation and sentiments come from these same justifications. 3/12

demeterjaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

ultimately, obscenity laws hamper our human right to not only free speech and expression, but delves into deeper questions of privacy. like bills pertaining to biological sex and who can go into what bathrooms, how are these laws enforced? 4/12

demeterjaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

for pornography, the answer is clear: banning IPs, providing personal identification, etc. The frequently-used phrase “lewd and lascivious/salacious” to define what’s obscene sets a dangerous precedent; there are no objective truths to what lewdness *is,* and the same applies to the latter 5/12

demeterjaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

Legislatively, America and her states have a massive problem with vague language that places a lot of power in the hands of ruling parties and the judicial. to what extent can the state enforce laws that would criminalize the consumption of porn? what about sodomy? 6/12

demeterjaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

sodomy laws exist on the books in 12 states (KS, OK, TX, MS, LA, GA, FL, SC, NC, KY, MI, MA), only declared unconstitutional under Lawrence v Texas (2003) decision. much like the Dobbs decision (2022), the argument outline by justice Thomas against Roe (1973) applies. 7/12

demeterjaw.bsky.social•2 days ago

In fact, Justice Thomas encouraged the SCOTUS to reconsider Lawrence (as well as Obergefell (gay marriage) and Griswold (contraception)). In the event of the court overturning Lawrence, sodomy immediately becomes illegal in the previously mentioned states. 8/12