this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
189 points (98.5% liked)

politics

23457 readers
2819 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 hour ago

Just a reminder, these people consider trans people existing pornography

[–] slickgoat@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago

If there is one single thing that will doom this government, it is trying to ban porn.

Weird, but true.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

The porn lobby is going to fuck this guy over.

Edit: they may even make some art out of it.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 42 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Is topless modelling considered soft porn?

Asking for a president’s wife.

[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 5 hours ago

She had an Einstein visa, so the nude pictures count as art. Any accompanying prostitution would be considered performance art.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Most of what they do is in service to white supremacy, including this.

  • Abortion restrictions: more white babies
  • Pornography restrictions: more white babies
  • Immigration restrictions: fewer brown babies

Make America Great Again literally just means "restoring" the "supremacy" of the white race and culture over all others.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see how the first two would increase the number of white babies proportionally to the rest of the babies being born. As far as I'm aware, the states with abortion restrictions have higher % black populations than the other states, for instance.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

It's pretty simple: the white population is losing ground relative to non-white populations. Yes, other populations will increase, but there's a practical ceiling. They likely believe that the white population gains will more than offset any gains by other ethnicities.

For black populations specifically, I'd have to do some simple analysis on this data, but it doesn't look particularly disproportionate in absolute numbers.

But really, I don't believe the black population is the principal target. See the graph. Consider the immigration policy.

Population growth by ethnicity

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/all-recent-us-population-growth-comes-from-people-of-color-new-census-estimates-show/

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 1 points 34 minutes ago

most populations around the world are slowing in growth, plateauing, or declining. Seems as people become wealthier, and more educated, very young people begin having less/no kids, for the most part, and this lack of teen births is what is largely being lost when we see these declines.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

I feel like your answer is just "they believe this will work."

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 52 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I despise gambling, but I have $5 that says he's going to be charged with child sex offenses before too long

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 5 hours ago

Can we get this on major betting sites? This is easy money some right wing idiot will give 3:1 on

[–] ramenshaman@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

I would not bet against that.

[–] ghostlychonk@lemm.ee 69 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

This man's search history and hard drive are littered with some vile, vile things I'd bet.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 33 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

More likely his version of porn is live and forced.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

And somehow I didn't think that could have gotten darker...

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 7 hours ago

During a holocaust?

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago

Nah, the authoritarian types are usually bottoms. It's transactional, and consensual.

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago

Oh, it probably involves anonymous check-ins to hotel rooms, involving attractive young men and methamphetamine.

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Well, there are PLENTY of porn sites that are not based in the US, as well as PLENTY of VPN providers that are euro based. Good luck with all of that. Those that want to watch porn, will just become slightly more tech literate.

[–] ferrule@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

you know by their definition of obscene the a huge portion of the bible will be thrown out.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 5 points 4 hours ago

Bold of you to assume they actually read the Bible

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 11 points 6 hours ago

should, but I've long given up any expectations of consistency or critical thinking from that bunch.

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

As long as prosecution for politicians caught in motel rooms with twinks and meth applies to them, also.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

Yeah I'm sure they'll get right on that

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

As much of horndog as Gaetz was, I have no problem believing he had some twinks, too.

Nothing wrong with that sexually, but his constituents wouldn't like it...

His face is fucking obscene. It should be banned nationwide.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago

Whole this is utterly stupid and theocratic as fuck, can I just say that picture that goes to this article just screams "and I'm exaggerating".