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.

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    10 months ago

    So they basically just want to abolish free speech? This is the first step in that process. Once they get one law passed about something like porn it makes it super easy to amend that law at any time to include anything the state deems to be “dangerous”.

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah porn is the easy target since not many politicians in Oklahoma are going to oppose it. Since it could damage their political image. Nobody wants to be labeled the porno guy/gal in the right wing news.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    While we’re arbitrarily disregarding the constitution, i now declare all assault rifles illegal. Suck my dick, asscunts.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”

    So there goes the majority of mainstream movies too, I guess 🤦

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    What is with the steady criminalization and paranoia with all things sexual in the last 15 yrs or so? It feels like more than the usual paranoia.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      I believe it is how self-proclaimed christians are responding to sexual and gender liberty/tolerance. They see it as lost ground in their crusade against deviance. So they are escalating things beyond reason in order to sooth their own conscience.

      That’s how I see it. Closeted bigots being closeted bigots.

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Also feels like Gen z is more prudish and so, even if they don’t really agree with these movements, they also aren’t as affected, so don’t really care about it happening either.

      • damirK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        And they know the rules will never apply to them anyway even if they get caught. Win win

    • HWK_290@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’re losing the culture war, both at a societal level and a political one. So they’re lashing out, ideally with what are the last gasps of their regressive ideology

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Next, having a vagina out of wedlock will be illegal.

  • FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    10 months ago

    The lawmakers pushing this should have their browsing history and message logs examined by a team of data recovery experts.

    I can assure you, they are into some weird shit but they spout these bullshit platitudes about turning others away from sin. It’s almost certainly because they are embarrassed or insecure about their own desires.

    See also : every right leaning politician who was secretly closeted gay

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.

    MOST porn is art because it has a camera as a medium, and it is viewed as “Entertainment”, this bill will have no teeth on arrival.

    My main problem is that this kind of logic is next door neighbors with, “That woman was dressed in a pornographic way! She should be dressed from head to toe in black!”

    Edit: correction

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Wasn’t this exactly what the Larry Flint case was about already? Sounds like political grand standing, so they can say they did something even if that something is completely moot anyway.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      “That woman was dressed in a pornographic way! She should be dressed from head to toe in black!”

      There’s no production there. Though… if we were to accept that it counts for “production” then technically… if you the “viewer” of that person view it in a sexual way, you’d be able to be held by the law as well.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    Can anyone tell me which year it is in Oklahoma? It can’t be anything starting with 20, 19, or even 18, that’s for sure.

  • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is either something that will only ever be selectively enforced, or designed to be so outrageous they can walk it back to what they actually want and look like they’re compromising.