It appears that Anthony Comstock is having something of a revival in Oklahoma. The founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice fought to criminalize the mailing of any obscene work, a broadly define category that included protected political speech. Now, a bill not only contains an expansive definition of lewd material but would criminalize even the viewing “obscene materials” by unmarried individuals.
Oklahoma Senate Bill 1976 would also make posing or exhibiting such images. The law would define unlawful depictions as including “lewd exhibition of the uncovered genitals, buttocks, or, if such person is female, the breast, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer”; any depiction of “physical restraint such as binding or fettering in the context of sexual conduct”; and the undefined category “sadomasochistic abuse.”
The range of that definition would cover not just porn but personal images sent between consenting adults. However, it is expressly not meant to “prevent spouses from sending images of a sexual nature to each other.” So what about consenting unmarried adults? They have a right to intimacy, privacy, and expression.
Moreover, it would be a crime to “buy, procure, view, or possess” any “obscene materials.” Thus, you could receive a lewd image from your lover and be criminally charged for viewing it?
In a 2002 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, Justice Kennedy in a 6-3 decision found that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was “overbroad” and swept within its prohibitions many valuable and artistic works.
“Pictures of what appear to be a 17-year-old engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards . . . The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea — that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity — that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries.”
The bill is presumptively unconstitutional in my view, but the Court made an unholy mess of this area in its rulings on obscenity. That lunacy was summed up in the ridiculous statement of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it] … But I know it when I see it.”
As written, this bill is too vague and too broad to pass constitutional muster under existing precedent.
Oklahoma’s law would ban Trump’s TMZ video, where Trump talked about grabbing women by the crotch or that Trump could murder someone on 5th Avenue without any repercussions. Obscene language indeed.
It would ban reporting Trump paying a porn star hush money. It could be interpreted to ban showing Trump’s coup attempt as obscene.
What about banning network police shows, Clint Eastwood movies or other graphic violence? Obscene to many Americans. This law would also ban many Bible depictions.
Under the 14th Amendment, Oklahoma police and prosecutors are required to enforce laws equally against all obscenity violations, by all violators equally.
So much for the conservative small government party!
Without trying to defend this law
Your argument is batschiff crazy.
Asserting that some law would do something does not make that true.
While I oppose this law and do not see a need for more laws.
especially not as we do not enforce those that already exist,
That does not mean this law which overreachs is somehow a rejection of conservative values.
It is the legitimate role of government to prevent the sexual exploitation of children.
That this law attempts to do so badly and unconstitutionally does not undermine the duty.
Limited govenrment does NOT mean ZERO government.
Conservatives are not anarchists.
Republicans do not seek to thwart the legitimate role of government in preventing and punishing the sexual abuse of children any more than they seek to repeal laws against murder.
If you are going to make an argument that your political opponents are hyporcits, it would be best to beat a more credible straw man to death.
(Not Same Anonymous but…)
Did you actually look at the content of the law before shooting down his comment?
Section 1024.2. It shall be unlawful for any person to buy, procure, view, or possess . . . obscene materials.”
“Obscene material” means and includes any representation, performance, depiction or description of sexual conduct, whether in any form or on any medium including still photographs, undeveloped photographs, motion pictures, undeveloped film, videotape, optical, magnetic or solid-state storage, CD or DVD, or a purely photographic product or a reproduction of such product in any book, pamphlet, magazine, or other publication or electronic or photo-optical format, if said items contain the following elements:
a. depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct which are patently offensive as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards,
b. taken as a whole, have as the dominant theme an appeal to prurient interest in sex as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards, and
c. a reasonable person would find the material or performance taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value.
Clearly, viewing Trump’s TMZ video would thus be “obscene material” because it depicts “sexual conduct” which is “patently offensive as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards.” Further, its dominant theme was clearly this obscene material, and no reasonable person would value the TMZ video for literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value.
Do you think that is somehow incorrect? Or, did you respond without actually reading its text?
For reference: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2023-24%20INT/SB/SB1976%20INT.PDF
“Your argument is batschiff crazy.”
Actually, his argument is perfectly reasonable.
Objective law requires objective definitions. However, this law’s definitions are completely subjective: “Obscene material” is whatever “the average person applying contemporary community standards” wishes it to be.
That means that you are guilty of a crime if some “average” people somewhere decide, after the fact, that something you’ve produced or consumed is “obscene.” Why? Because that’s what they decided. That is mob rule.
Based on this appeal to community feelings, what could be “obscene,” and therefore a crime? Anything or nothing — which is precisely his argument.
_The Scarlett Letter_ is supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint.
You are conflating vagueness with subjectivity. A reasonableness standard (of which there are many in the law) is an objective standard. This is essentially the same thing.
I agree that is dumb and vague. It would be difficult to apply on the margins, but as it pertains to a video involving a man bragging about unwanted sexual touching of women, the answer is clear here.
This issue is further proof that SCOTUS often strays from interpreting the constitutionality of legislation, but actually creates new law by their decisions.
.
In their 2002 6-3 decision overturning the Child Pornography Protection Act, SCOTUS extended free speech protections to the Internet. This was wrong due to three fundamental arguments.
.
ONE:
The First Amendment states the following:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …”
.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary from the 18th Century defines speech as:
* “The power of articulate utterance; the power of expressing thoughts by vocal words.”
* “Any thing spoken.”
* “Talk; mention.”
Therefore, the 1st Amendment relates only to “speech”, NOT “expression”. There is no such right in the 1st Amendment as to “freedom of expression”.
.
Since there was no digital technology when the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and approved by Congress and the states, any “new” rights must therefore be drafted and then approved by the Congress and the state legislatures as described in the amendment process.
.
TWO:
Since digital technology is supported and sustained by the Internet and various online media (emails, social media, etc.), the government has every right to approve legislation regulating the Internet and online media under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution [“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”].
.
Therefore, Congress DOES have the constitutional authority to regulate the Internet and online media.
.
THREE:
The Tenth Amendment declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
.
In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
.
SUMMARY:
The State of Oklahoma has the constitutional right to regulate digital technology, but the law should have no carved out exceptions so that all individuals are treated equally.
.
“This issue is . . .”
One: Under that stunted view of 1A, government can criminalize images and pictures. Say goodbye to political cartoonists.
“. . . expressing thoughts by vocal words.” So *writing* is not protected by 1A?!
“There is no such right in the 1st Amendment as to ‘freedom of expression.'” Apparently, you do not realize that expression is done via words.
“. . . any “new” rights must therefore be drafted . . .” The Constitution is not a list of government permissions.
Two: Say goodbye to emails, blogs, social media companies (and any “digital technology,” including publishers and newspapers) that dissent from the administration’s official ideas.
Three: You’re ignoring this part of 10A: “nor prohibited by it to the states.” Further, there is no such thing as a government’s “right” to censor ideas or expressions that it doesn’t like. (Or in this case, that religious conservatives don’t like.)
Every element of your “argument” is nothing more that a means to justify your ends: To shove Puritanism down the throats of adults.
The error of your argument is trivial.
Rights must be understood broadly, government powers must be understood narrowly – this is not an issue of ideology, or philosophy, but practicality. If you read rights narrowly – they do not exist.
You say the constitutional protection for speech applies only to speech.
Do that mean it applies only to oral communications ? Can written communication be restricted ?
If you can not restrict written communication, they can you restrict graphic communications ?
Can you say political posters can have words, but no pictures ?
There is a reason that SCOTUS has applied the first amendment to all EXPRESSION.
Next, can government pass laws that have nothing to do with WHAT you can say, but they make it impossible for you to be heard ?
Can government say that political protests are OK – but only at 3am, in your shower in your home ?
Contra the Left, CU did not decide that Money is speech or that corporations are not persons.
Both those issues were resolves more than a century ago.
A corporation is NOT a person, it is MANY people who have chosen to associate for a common purpose.
People in a group do NOT have less rights than people individually.
If you think that a corporation has no free speech rights – what about a church ? A civic group ? What about a partnership ?
What about a couple in a marraige ?
If government can not regulate speech when Two people agree to say something together – it can not regulate the speech of a corporation.
Money is a often a necescity for speech. Can government restrict your ability to speak by restricting how you spend money ?
Can government say that Greenpeace can stand in the middle of the street and protest, but it can not pay to send out mailers ?
If your claim that we must read rights in constitution very narrowly – then it is trivial for government to fence in those rights so much that they might as well not exist.
Presumably you have read enough of the constitution to have read the 9th amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
‘Since there was no digital technology when the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written and approved by Congress and the states, any “new” rights must therefore be drafted and then approved by the Congress and the state legislatures as described in the amendment process.’
Doubly false. It is ludicrously stupid to claim that new means of communicating do not enjoy the same protections as old ones.
Telegraphs, phones, cell phones, radios, TV, did not exist in 1787. While the Printing press did. The presses of 1787 were all operated by hand, does that mean that a machine press is not covered by the first amendment ?
We are not dealing with NEW rights, just new means of utilizing OLD rights.
Further, as the 9th amendment makes clear – the constitution does NOT define the only rights you have.
It is NOT necescary to amend the constitution to protect a right.
Finally rights are neither new or old.
Most rights – such as free speech and self defense are natural rights – as the declaration of independence notes -that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. They precede government.
In fact the social contract justification for government is the protection of those rights.
All the powers granted to government are for the purpose of protecting individual rights.
Government does not exist for its own sake. “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”
There are a limited number of rights created by Government – these are things such as due process, or the right to vote.
As to your claims regarding regulating the internet through the commerce clause.
Article I, S10, C1
No State shall …[pass] Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
Government may not restrict free trade. PERIOD.
The entire purpose of the commerce clause was to preclude States from regulating commerce – not to empower the Federal government.
As Adam Smith noted 250 years ago
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Nothing has changed.
Whether you are on the left or the right, efforts to expand govenrment power – whether federal or state, ultimately do more harm than good.
The legitimate and useful role of government is quite limited – limiting the use of violence. Adjudicating disputes over agreements, requiring those who actually harm others to make them whole.
As Smith noted – “all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
Professor Turley Writes:
Anthony Comstock fought to criminalize the mailing of any obscene work, a broadly defined category that included protected political speech.
***
As the legal battle over abortion pills winds through the federal courts, anti-abortion activists are citing a 150-year-old law, the Comstock Act of 1873, to bolster their case.
For most of the past century, that law has rarely if ever been enforced, with many of its anti-vice provisions narrowed by federal courts or considered to be vastly out of date. But with the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision, opponents of abortion rights have begun invoking it as a legal basis for blocking the mailing of abortion medication.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/comstock-act-1978-abortion-pill.html
…………………………………..
Professor Turley is absolutely right: ‘The Comstock Act is anti-free speech and broadly defined with no place in 21st Century America’.
Neither Republicans nor democrats have a track record of moral purity with regard to individual rights or the first amendment.
Though unarguably democrats have been far worse. It was progressive justice holmes who Penned Buck V. Bell – still the law of the land and still cited to restrict individual rights in public health contexts. Buck V. Bell could easily be used to bar abortions too. The core holding of Buck V. Bell is that individuals do NOT have the right to control of their own bodies.
It was progressive democrat Wilson who passed the sedition act – which he then used to prosecute a political opponent, and jail the only presidential candidate to run a political campaign from a jail cell. Eugene Debbs was subsequently pardoned by the Republican elected after Wilson. Wilson was also a known white supremecist and racist. As was most of the democratic party from the founding through the present.
FDR is the only president to inter US citizens without trial of Due process en masse – when he ordered tens of thousands of american citizens of japanese ancestory to be sent to concentration camps. Oddly – this occured primarily in California, where Whites quickly took over the businesses and property of Japanese americans. But it did not occur in Hawaii – where there was a larger percentage of Japanese americans and a greater risk to the Major US naval base at Perl Harbor.
Do I need to go on ?
Pro-Life vs Pro Choice did not used to be a republican/democrat issue. Catholics were and to some extent still are mostly democrat.
The Racist white south has been primarily democrat up to the 21st century.
Comstock’s Load
Sorry, but I’m always going to come back to parenting. This is not a popular view, as conservative parents are just as, if not more babying than their liberal counterparts. the babying is insane; it would be very easy to mistake a kid’s mom for her girlfriend the way we are doing things now. These kids are doing things they have no moral context for. Who taught them that, or failed to teach them that? It wasn’t their teachers, they showed up to school already pliable. If you are buying phones or iPads for your kids before the age of 13 or so, you are the problem. We used to blame it on TV, and it was true. If you don’t want to actually have to raise your kids, don’t have them. It is no one’s responsibility to take over after you’ve popped and dropped. You are quite literally the only ones responsible for their upbringing, and to try to blame it on nebulous forces ‘out there’ or ‘in the classroom’ are getting really old. Teachers are not your subsidized nanny’s, and no kid should be showing up to school knowing nothing whatsoever. What they are defunct in at kindergarten is what they will be defunct in at university, and that is intelligence, competence, morality, civility. That they can’t even open a bag of chips or use a paper clip or a stapler in 2024 is another and equally egregious talking point. Modern parents are failures of the worst kind, and the rest of us will have to carry the burden until we do better.
This is deep, hard stuff. But until we solve it, nothing will improve.
James,
Well said.
Gotta get back to the nuclear family, get the screens out of the house or limit them for both kids and parents.
While you are correct that there is an issue of parenting, it is more complex.
The data overall is that conservative and religious parents are NOT so coddling as the rest, and that their children tend to grow up happier and more productive as a rule. Obviously this is not universally true. There are plenty of quite vile and harmful conservative parents, as well as ones that coddle their children.
It is further complicated by the fact that regardless of ideology bad parents exist, but that when the state steps in the consequences are worse. Even by the 80’s the data showed that when the state took a child from a sexually abusive parent, that the child was MORE LIKELY to be abused in care than had they stayed with the heinous parent. Charles Manson is a product of the state as parent.
There are an enormous number of problems that do not have perfect answers.
Parenting is one of those. We can do better, but there is ZERO possibility that every child will receive good much less excellent parenting that they should be entitled to.
This understanding that many problems do NOT have solutions is a huge error that all of the left makes, and often the right makes.
All change is not good – most change is actually bad. Free markets sort that out, Government ossifies bad changes.
The core of conservatism – which is not an ideology it is just a value free rule based on reality, is that most change makes things worse not better, so we should proceed with great caution when we seek to change something that has worked imperfectly, in the belief that we can do better.
With respect to TV, Iphones, ….
Ultimately these get worked out over time.
There are no hard and fast rules for when a child should get a phone or anything else.
One of the reasons we need parents is because each child is unique. They have different strengths and weaknesses.
As an example we KNOW that social media is far more damaging for girls than boys.
That is a generalization, but one that is true.
We have gone through a generation where lots of changes to child rearing have proved to be mistakes.
We have harmed a generation of children in doing so.
And we are in the midst of the damages from those poor choices.
But these things tend to self correct – sometimes over correct.
I am very happy that we have passed “peak woke” – the pendulum is swinging the other way.
I am NOT at this moment concerned about some MAGA totalitarian turn – the risk of totalitarianism remains higher fromt he left than the right.
But I am concerned that as the pendulum swings right that as we discard the woke nonsense of the left, we will also discard changes of merit.
I am hopeful specifically because the left has stupidly used some of the bad policies of the right against it.
We must end the militarization of the police – I am hopeful that Biden SWATTING prolife protestors will prevent the rightward swing from returning to or doubling down on the militarization of police.
Defunding the police is idiocy. But we do have both alternatives and supliments to our criminal justice system that in some cases improve outcomes. These are luxury goods that only an affluent society can afford, but they do work well enough to be worth exploring – so long as we are not stupid enough to beleive they can entirely replace traditional law enforcement.
Not dissimilar to the 5th Amendment right to private property, under which only the owner has the power exclusively to “claim and exercise” dominion, the 4th Amendment comprehensively provides the right to privacy, wherein only the owner of the person (i.e. the person) has the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over privacy, “…their persons, houses, papers, and effects….”
When in doubt, a tie goes to the runner. The Constitution abrogated monarchy and dictatorship. The Constitution was conceived to severely restrict and limit government and to provide maximal freedom to individuals. In a matching of diametrically opposed concerns among the government and the citizen, a ruling shall be made in favor of “natural” and “God-given” rights, including the right to privacy, which existed before government was conceived.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
____________________
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
effect
noun
ef·fect i-ˈfekt
plural effects
3: the quality or state of being operative : operation
5: movable property : goods : household effects – see also personal effects
I’d be more worried about the actual Comstock Act and how it will affect the 2024 election, if SCOTUS doesn’t dismiss the abortion pill case on standing grounds.
I think it a little presumptive to believe that Marriage hold all of the sexuality, eroticism and emotional fulfillment in life.
Hence to hold that, Sexting your partner with Kama Sutra images to suggest something for the evening, in that it can be as common as asking ‘What would you like for Dinner tonight (with a photo of Lasagna)’ be Criminally Illegal, is an Attorney’s Wet Dream.
Wherefore anything that is: Suggestive, Provocative, Titillating, and Arousing is fair game. Bye Bye; Taylor Swift, Madonna, Martha Stewart!
[Oh Hell No! – Not my Martha Stewart [ https://pagesix.com/2023/12/29/style/martha-stewart-82-posts-thirst-trap-in-lace-nightgown/ ]
Have the Divorce Attorneys run out of Litigants(?), that They now have to focus their litigation on the Moral Turpitude of Millions of Sexting Individuals equipped with High Resolution 8K Smart Phones? Perhaps they best focus on a Group like “iPhone Users.”
There you go – a Captive sector ripe for Litigation. Ka-Ching!
O.M.G.!
Don’t tell me that a picture of me mooning the current President would be illegal! I would be lost for words. It is the only language that he understands.
Assuming the slurring, demented “Mister Magoo” even comprehends that! FJB and all the braying donkeys of the Left!
I read the bill. Its intent, as it appears to me, is to assure that child pornography at the state level is illegal and punishable by law. With such bills, however, what is intended and what becomes law are two separate things. This is a sticky wicket legally.
If any person tries to justify child pornography, abuse of minors, human trafficking, kidnapping then they are beyond hope. This bill has not gone to committee and I doubt that I will get very far in its present form. That being said, the wild Wild West of the internet is fertile ground for the sick deviants and the criminal rings who traffic minors and those who prey on children and minors. There are places in the world where small children are put to auction. Now, it instead of being seen in the heart of sleaze, this can quietly be put to the internet with the same result. Child and Minor sexual slavery and kidnapping is a sick and growing menace; those who traffic and those who partake are lower than low.
This is every parent and grandparents worst fear (no matter their political leanings) for their children and grandchildren to fall prey to these disgusting criminals.
E.M.
Well said.
If they really want to go after child pornography, sexual abuse of minors, human trafficking and kidnapping then they should address it directly and not the vague wording.
Excellent E.M. There is a 501c3 called the Association for the Recovery of Children (ARC) that is taking this fight head on. I’ve had the honor of meeting the President, Bazzel Baz and he is our guest speaker at our annual Knights Templar ceremony in March.
https://recoveryofchildren.org/
Turley worries about criminalizing free speech and twisting the constitution, but he enables and protects Trump who has openly said he would terminate the constitution. So what’s your point Turley?
oh, gawd.
Lin,
Right?
I’ve responded to some of the trolls just to point out how for from reality and facts they’re comments land.
But here lately they aren’t even adjacent to reality. Even their fellow trolls are shaking their head as such nonsense.
Trump is living proof that a con-man doesn’t have to be smart if his victims are stupid enough. Trump said it, prove me wrong.
If only we were all as smart as fishwings, we’d have biden and kamala and michael obamma and aoc to lead us to peace and prosperity.
How do you not realize…nevermind.
Trump Never said that. False Statement.
Trump in a Truth Social Post in December 2022, referring to 2020 election results (surprise, surprise): “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3762407-trump-insists-he-doesnt-want-to-terminate-constitution/
He did walk back the statements after significant GOP criticism (including Mike Pence). But, Trump did, in fact, say he thinks part of the Constitution should be terminated.
I think you might wish to read the post you cite carefully – it does not mean what you claim.
The “Fraud” was not just the rigging of the election, and the termination of all rules and regulations and articles – even those found in the constitution is what Trump is alleging DEMOCRATS did in 2020.
Did Trump say some parts of the constitution should be terminated ? I do not know – but your post and cites do not demonstrate that.
Regarldess, Left wing nuts argue for terminating parts of the constitution all the time.
There are posters here, right now on the left looking to narrow free speech so much as to be meaningless.
Further personally there are parts of the constitution that I oppose, and think should be terminated.
That is not a claim that until they are lawfully repealed that they must not be followed.
And in fact in the past we have “terminated” parts of the constitution – we repealed Prohibition.
Finally – with respect – Mike Pence is NOT someone who you should cite regarding the constitution.
What are you talking about? Here’s the original post:
https://twitter.com/kevinrkosar/status/1599368128026226689
TRUMP: “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closing with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare a RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules , regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
There is no way to interpret that Trump alleging the Democrats want to terminate the Constitution. This is basic reading comprehension.
Anyone graduating elementary school should be able to interpret this as the following:
1. The DNC, the Democratic Party, and Big Tech have committed fraud and deception.
2. Because of this fraud and deception, Trump asks whether the election results should be thrown out and the “rightful winner” declared the president-elect, or whether we should have a new election.
3. “This type” of “massive fraud” (meaning – the fraud just noted in the previous sentence by Democrats, the DNC, and Big Tech) warrants the termination of all rules and regulations, including those in the Constitution.
4. Democrats have committed the fraud, per Trump, and therefore, the defrauded party (Republicans) are justified in terminating parts of the Constitution if necessary to install the “Rightful Winner” as president-elect or to organize a new election.
Do you disagree? How could you possibly arrive at: “Trump is alleging DEMOCRATS” want to terminate the Constitution?
During Trump’s presidency – how frequently did the Trump WH attempt to shut down social media criticism of Trump ?
While Trump is not some great civil libertarian. He is orders of magnitude less of a threat to the “rule of law”., to the constitution, to individual liberties and rights than almost anyone in the Democratic party.
Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not litterally,
Trump’s detractors take him litterally but not seriously.
Do you really expect that Trump would even attempt to “terminate the constitution” ?
Considering the state of the cost of living, the border, war, outrageous political corruption and crime, a few sexy photos of the female form might prove to be refreshing?
$100 on bill sponsor Senator Deevers’ sex tape leaking in 3, 2, 1, …
There is no way republicans will go for this. Look at Moms for Liberty. They support threesomes and even rape if the women says no to the man but only wanted the woman. And look at trump? how many women has he raped? No way this will happen. The party that claims moral superiority is really the party that loves their unmarried sex and sex with minors.
I forgot to add how much sex happens between priests/pastors/lay people in church as well.
No way this passes.
The majority of pedophile cases are committed by relatives and family members of the victim.
Bob is projecting as usual
I believe the correct term to use is friends of the family and relatives, not family members. Who has committed all the voter fraud these past few years? Republicans are the ones being arrested for voting twice and voting for dead people. Was I incorrect about the leader of Moms for Liberty being involved in a threesome? Where rape was alleged? And the woman preferred the woman over the man? Perhaps the author of this bill is trying to divert attention away from him. trump has taught an awful lot of people that it is fine to lie about your ongoing activities.
“I believe the correct term to use is friends of the family and relatives, not family members.”
You can believe whatever you want. Friends and family and relatives are certainly high on the list of those sexually abusing children. But immediate family is at the top. My wife is a criminal appellate lawyer and a plurality of her cases are child sex abuse.
The largest portion of those are fathers, sons, and step fathers.
” Who has committed all the voter fraud these past few years? Republicans are the ones being arrested for voting twice and voting for dead people.”
If you think the majority of cases involve republicans – then you are ignorant of the facts.
But absolutely individuals of both parties commit election fraud.
Of course we also have the bias of courts and prosecutions to factor in. A democrat former mayor in AZ, committed nearly 10,000 acts of voter fraud in 2020. She received a plea deal and was convicted of one. Atleast one Democrats in Philadelphia has been convicted of election fraud in every election in my lifetime. one of the more recent involved an election official who stood beside a tabulator and ran the same ballot through possibly more than 500 times – all of which were counted.
I beleive the mix of voters found to have voted twice in the AZ election in 2020 was about equal between democrats and republicans.
But the FACT is we do not actually KNOW that 13,000 people in AZ voted almost 50,000 times.
What we KNOW is that 50,000 ballots were counted from only 13,000 people, many of whom were republicans.
We do not know who filled those ballots out or mailed them in. All we know is whose name was on the mailin envelope.
We ALSO know that Zuckerbucks were used to take over local election administration in each of the 6 major cities in the 6 key swing states – and subsequently to identify registered voters that had not yet voted and provide those to political parties on request. Meaning that political 501c3’s had the information necescary to manufacture mailin ballots by the hundreds of thousands by those who had not yet voted. If Some of thse people subsequently voted – we would get duplicates.
Trying to address this was one of the reasons for the mess in Maricpoa and Clark counties in 2022.
While in both states it was illegal to vote more than once – there are a few states that have a last ballot counts rule.
Dealing with duplicate mailin ballots or dealing with in person ballots overriding mailin ballots, requires counting In Person ballots FIRST, and then rejecting all mailin ballots by the same person.
In a state that does this properly – which is difficult, the zuckerberg funded election fraud is both mitigated and detected.
Which is also likely why Hobbs had to wreak havoc on the in person voting in AZ in 2022. Properly handling inperson voting in 2022, would have not only given the election to Lake, but would also have exposed any efforts to engage in Large Scale Zucker funded Mail in fraud.
” Was I incorrect about the leader of Moms for Liberty being involved in a threesome?”
Yes, the allegation is against someone ONCE part of M4L. Not a current leader.
” Where rape was alleged? And the woman preferred the woman over the man? ”
Absolutely allegations have been made. Todate no charges have been filed.
According to sources within the police the former M4L leader and her husband admitted to having sex with the person making allegations publicly, but neither have confirmed that publicly.
Todate there is nothing but allegations.
I am not trying to defend anything – maybe the allegations are true.
There is no evidence that Republicans do not ever engage in sexual misconduct.
In fact there is evidence that Republicans engage in sex more frequently than Democrats,
and that Republicans are more likely to engage in a variety of sexual fetishes.
There is not however evidence that Republicans are more likely to engage in rape or child sexual abuse.
Nor can we discredit the entirety of any movement because of the misconduct of one member or one former leader.
Its not like we do not have all kinds of allegations of sexual misconduct regarding democratic leaders.
Since you have decided to take aim at M4L, here id s clip of an actual leader of M4L on the Joy Reid show, eating Reids lunch.
https://youtu.be/F3dZFhlj4_Y
I have no idea what actually happened with this woman you are ranting about – and neither do you.
But even the worst allegation involves the conduct of adults with other adults.
And 95% of the allegations involve consensual adults.
M4L is seeking to protect children from being anally raped.
If this is your idea of “whataboutism” – I do not really give a damn about alleged sexual conduct between consenting adults as somehow demonstrating that people who seek to protect children from rape are hypocrits.
The women in your allegations left M4L years ago. But assuming she has not. Assuming she is the public face of M4L.
Her conduct with other consenting adults has ZERO bearing on her efforts to protect children from non-consensual sexual content.
Wow people in power tend to abuse that power against others. News at 9.
Its not like VP/Pres. Biden is not known to have sniffed the hair of children and any women who get near him.
Or fondled the breasts of Secret Service agents or their wives.
There is little evidence that there is any political facet to sexual abuse. Catholics as an example have been voting democrat for years, and I highly doubt that more than a small percent of catholic priests are republicans.
Absolutely we should be appalled at proven sexual abuse.
But we need to get past idiots such as you.
All abuse is not reported, Nor are all allegations of abuse true.
#MeToo established heinous actions in Hollywood as well as elsewhere – and their coverup.
But it also resulted in numerous false claims.
And worse still in most cases even after #MeToo – the coverup continues.
Most of those in the left wing nut media who engaged in misconduct are back at their jobs.
Ex-Teacher Who Trolled Conservatives About Grooming Gets 17 Years For Child Porn
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/former-oahu-teacher-gets-17-year-prison-sentence-for-producing-child-porn/article_d07d9862-b4d5-11ee-8f19-43ba65dbdd91.html
President Of Canadian LGBT Organization Arrested On Child Sex Abuse Charges
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fort-st-john-man-charged-with-child-sex-crimes-1.7076997
You really need to get off the meth. There is help available.
Do you live in reality ? No M4L does not support any of that. There are allegations against one of the ounders, no longer affiliated with the group, and even those allegations do not go near as far as you claim and ultimately may not hold bu.
How many Women has Trump raped ? ZERO. Carrol tried to make that claim and could not persuade a NY Jury.
Many other women have made that calaim and been tossed by again often NY antitrump judges and juries.
Has Tara Read gotten her day in court with proven sniffer and alleged rapist Biden ?
Read is credible, She can name the day, the place, the time. She can prove that she and Biden knew each other and were in each others presence frequently.
Carrol has none of these FACTS. She has a suit that was not on the market until after – possibly years after the alleged event took place.
And Carrol can not tell us the year, the season, the time that this took place. The best she has is a photo from a receiving line that proves she and Trump were once – in 40 years in NYC at the same place at the same time.
Somehow I don’t believe this bill is causing any people at Pornhub sleepless nights. I’m conservative and religious but legislating morality is doomed to failure. Better to teach the hallmarks and reasons for morality in school and church. And from a sense of morality one can move in to ethics in business, law , politics, etc but that will require a more universal agreement in the population on morality. Better to deal with ethics.
Better to teach the hallmarks and reasons for morality in school and church.
In other words, morality should instruct the law, not the other way around.
Yeah, that is just plain dumb.
Like pulling a rubber band and having it snap back in your face. This law goes too far. Police yourself and keep government out of things. I agree that there is far to much sex everywhere these days but personal choices by people raised decently are the answer to this cultural problem. We, as citizens, have removed the moral fiber of this nation and it is up to us to recreate a society that doesn’t need or want this – not a law that prohibits it. Just think how badly prohibition worked out.
The Christian Taliban are hilarious.
let me guess…males goes to jail…women are given a free pass
how about we focus on the rule of law…rather than the nanny religious state!