ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
It is already illegal. See Anthony Weiner.
Dick pics in and of themselves aren't illegal if they are between 2 consenting ADULTS. Weiner fucked up because he sent dick pics to someone who was underage.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is already illegal. See Anthony Weiner.
So you don't think a school board member telling a parent the school library book she is reading publicly is inappropriate for kids to read / hear, admitting schools are putting material kids shod not be exposed to, is a problem?Did you even bother to read your link? The person was reading a PASSAGE (meaning only a small part of the book) and that PASSAGE (i.e. small part of the book) was deemed inappropriate. Incidentally, they were stopped because the meeting was being live streamed and there was a possibility that kids in grade school might be watching. But, interestingly enough, the book was only in the H.S. library, and it was okay for H.S. students to read.
No.............the book itself wasn't pornography. By the way, there are many books out there that have racy passages in them.
So, since you failed with your first link, got anything else to show that pornography is being allowed in schools?
The First Amendment be damned.Mike Lee (R) has just introduced a bill that would fine or imprison any American who posts “sexual content” of any kind on the internet
Pornography is entitled to First Amendment protections – not that the neo-fascist right cares about the Constitution, of course.Look up the defintion of pornohraphy.
Putting people in prison for exercising their First Amendment rights – how typically conservative.We will have to build a lot of new prisons to hold all the liberal Democrats who do porn on the internet. So another plus is it will create construction jobs.
Protection of vulnerable, easily influenced / impressionable underaged children is protected by both Constitutiona and law.Pornography is entitled to First Amendment protections – not that the neo-fascist right cares about the Constitution, of course.
That would mean that any guy who has sent a dick pic would be guilty. Same for a woman who has sent nudies of herself.
And...............with the definition he's currently trying to go with, even pics women send of themselves in lingerie would be considered obscene.
What a wonderful use of government time huh?
That would mean that any guy who has sent a dick pic would be guilty. Same for a woman who has sent nudies of herself.
And...............with the definition he's currently trying to go with, even pics women send of themselves in lingerie would be considered obscene.
Heathen liberals would have to find something else to do other than bopping their bologna.
Hilarious
We constantly push the boundaries, and this is where we are today. Pornography on the internet is one thing, however children used in pornography on the internet is another.Then the SI Swimsuit issue would also qualify.
I believe that is illegal at both the state and Federal level in the US.We constantly push the boundaries, and this is where we are today. Pornography on the internet is one thing, however children used in pornography on the internet is another.
There are those on BOTH sides who put forth legislation that has no chance of passing. Why worry about something that has no chance of passing? Oh yeah, you want to score political points.finally, we have a solution to inflation! thanks Mike! Wait...
![]()
Utah senator proposes bill to ban internet porn in US
Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee has proposed legislation to essentially outlaw adult material on the internet.www.wfla.com
As opposed to what conservatives watch when they’re wanking? Trump rally replays? 1/6 footage? Tucker Carlson?Defining it is simple, it's what liberals are looking at when they're wanking.