News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
There's SCOTUS precedent saying that pornography--but not obscenity--is covered by 1A. (Obscenity isn't very well defined, but it's generally understood to mean pedophilia/anything involving minors (including drawings), certain acts of violence combined with sex, bestiality, and possibly necrophilia. Other extreme sexual acts--such as crush fetishes--might also fall under obscenity.) You can't pass laws to unspool constitutional rights; your only legal recourse is either stacking the court with people that want to change precedent, or amend the constitution.
Or just do what Trump, his administration, and the Republicans are doing. Move fast, break things, then tell the court 'oops, you're too late.' Trump and the Republicans don't care about the law, they only reason they pass anything through the house is because they want it to have more legitimacy than just a Presidential declaration. If it doesn't pass the house it'll still be the law. Just not on any books.
hmmm wherever could we find a bunch of justices that would want to change precedent....🤔
Pretty sure that Alito, Thomas, and Barrett would be all-in on that. Not sure about Goresuch, Roberts, or Kavanaugh.
they 6-3'd Roe. they give no shits about precedent.
This bill is trying to get it all legally classified as obscenity. They're leaning into obscenity already being illegal, they just want to extend the classification to include basically all nudity and porn.
Actually good! Those assholes duddling children need to go away, for a long time.
Pretty sure obscenity has to include actual people or at least be photo realistic enough to not be able to tell the difference.
It definitely does not. Look up Boiled Angel; I think that case was an absolute fucking travesty, but as of right now, it's still good case law.
Just read through that whole thing and it made my blood boil. I don't even know what it included, and it doesn't matter. Drawings, especially those pointing out issues in society, should not be jailable. Fucking ridiculous.
And the judge that claimed that even if they were commentary on society, he should use a better vehicle? Who the fuck is he to say what art is? If he acknowledges it is commentary on society, it shouldn't fucking matter to a court how the drawings portrayed it.
It's more or less a textbook example of why the 'community standards' standard is bad, but it's still current case law. I sincerely wish that some large white-shoe law firm had take the case as part of their pro bono work, but, fuck me, that just never seems to happen.
That would still cover porn in general and things like deep fakes wouldn’t it?
Only if they otherwise meet the definition of obscenity (talking about current law). Like has been said the definition is somewhat vague (deliberately so), but there have been some things that have been ruled not to be, including art and most porn.