Future of porn (and this site) is really uncertain right now…

[brnbk]

On 2/28/2024 at 12:55 PM, ellentonboy said:

It will be interesting to see if other countries will even cooperate.  Will movies be shot in Mexico or Spain (a real hot bed of gay porn, FYI), Brazil or maybe parts of Asia.  I just don't see how they are going to control adult content.

Where there is a will, there is a way....

India, make no porn usually, and officially does not watch porn. Yet porn is still available there; and the country's rape and gangrape crisis, and issues with the status of women is well know. 

Denying sexuality isn't such a smart solution to the age old problem of human sexuality: India is a prime example of it!

[ellentonboy]

2 hours ago, brnbk said:

India, make no porn usually, and officially does not watch porn. Yet porn is still available there; and the country's rape and gangrape crisis, and issues with the status of women is well know. 

Denying sexuality isn't such a smart solution to the age old problem of human sexuality: India is a prime example of it!

I am aware of the issues in India, I had a friend who declined going to a wedding there because she said the chance of rape was quite high.  Because many young men had no privacy, lived at home, their only  sexual outlets were to either use prostitutes or rape women.

I agree, denying sexuality is a losing battle.

[BergenGuy]

On 3/2/2024 at 2:05 PM, BootmanLA said:

I can't imagine the Supreme Court wanting to tackle that definition to rewrite it. 

There used to be a lot of things that we couldn't imagine the Supreme Court doing.

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

There used to be a lot of things that we couldn't imagine the Supreme Court doing.

Granted. And if I didn't have to follow what they do closely (including reading most of their opinions, including dissents, completely), I might just assume "SCOTUS Republican, always vote that way".

But each justice has his or her own quirks and views, and while it's certainly true that 6 of the 9 are farther to the right than the other 3, that doesn't mean they all vote in lockstep with whatever the Republicans seem to want. Bear in mind that Trump lost every case tied to the election in 2020 save one, and that one was only a minor quibble over something that in no way came even remotely close to affecting the outcome. The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, wouldn't even consider taking up most of his garbage lawsuits.

In terms of the First Amendment, I haven't seen any opinions from Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, or Barrett that suggest they might even come close to trampling on porn rights. Alito - sure; he's a cheap whore for the right and would sign anything the Federalist Society wants him to. Thomas - even he would be a tough sell on a porn ban (or something that had that kind of effect).

Because the right has made no secret, almost since the beginning, that they thought (for instance) Roe was decided wrongly. They've likewise said the same about Obergefell and Lawrence. But there's never been any hue and cry from the right that the key First Amendment cases on obscenity should be overturned. I just don't think these justices see that as an issue where they need to expend any political capital to deliver something for the right.

[BergenGuy]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

But there's never been any hue and cry from the right that the key First Amendment cases on obscenity should be overturned.

You're probably correct.  But, do you really think that Christian nationalists are going to let porn exist in their theocracy?

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, BergenGuy said:

You're probably correct.  But, do you really think that Christian nationalists are going to let porn exist in their theocracy?

I think if they actually controlled everything completely, including the Supreme Court, the answer might be "No". But as strong as the right (in a general sense)'s control is over the political system, the Christian nationalist types don't control the Supreme Court.

Some will argue that point with me based on the Dobbs decision, but I'd argue that even though religious groups loudly supported that decision, and take credit for it, the full truth is a lot more complicated. I don't think Clarence Thomas, for instance, is a Christian Nationalist; he's very much a conservative and farther to the right than most other judges, but it's largely driven by a very slavish (pun intended) devotion to the text of the Constitution (or at least, what he thinks the text meant in 1789). I don't think Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is particularly religious. Barrett is a bit more so, but even she seems to understand there's a difference between allowing religions to mostly operate unhindered (the new "default" interpretation of the free exercise clause) and imposing religious beliefs on others (ie warping the establishment clause, which some lower courts seem inclined to do).

[BergenGuy]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I think if they actually controlled everything completely, including the Supreme Court, the answer might be "No". But as strong as the right (in a general sense)'s control is over the political system, the Christian nationalist types don't control the Supreme Court.

At one time, Roe seemed safe.  But, then the composition of the entire court system rapidly and radically changed within just a few years.  That's why I worry about the future.  It doesn't take a majority, or even a substantial minority, to push through change.  It just takes a enough single-issue voters who are razor-focused on that goal, while the rest of us split and dither over what we should seek next and refuse to unite as a bloc against the single-issue voters.

[PozBearWI]

Honestly I don't think publicly Christian Nationals support porn, they just want to limit it to "their porn".  Privately I think more porn is funded by Christian Nationals than anyone is going to admit.  

[hntnhole]

Isn't it odd how the so-called "Evanglicals" - purportedly following the message of Jesus - don't give a rats ass that their "Second Coming" is centered on a serial rapist, and all the countless other spectacular character flaws he possesses?  

So much for following what they claim as their foundational belief-system.  They're "evangelizing" the direct opposite of what they seem to think is their "belief-system".

[BootmanLA]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:57 PM, BergenGuy said:

At one time, Roe seemed safe.  But, then the composition of the entire court system rapidly and radically changed within just a few years.  That's why I worry about the future.  It doesn't take a majority, or even a substantial minority, to push through change.  It just takes a enough single-issue voters who are razor-focused on that goal, while the rest of us split and dither over what we should seek next and refuse to unite as a bloc against the single-issue voters.

I don't disagree with your overall point. But again, Roe involved a dedicated push by single-issue groups attacking the foundation of the Roe decision for over 40 years, in conjunction with a lot of religious groups and others with a broader focus. While a lot of moralistic groups (broadly speaking) oppose Lawrence and Obergefell, there are essentially no major groups whose sole focus is re-criminalization of sodomy or abolition of same-sex marriage - and the same is essentially true about porn.

Also: there were very few cases in the Supreme Court on abortion after Casey (the 1992 case that affirmed the core idea that abortion is a right) that didn't chop away at abortion rights. Restriction after restriction was permitted so that even before Dobbs, abortion was heavily restricted in red states, with large numbers of clinics having been shut down over the years. That doesn't mean Dobbs wasn't a major hit, but it was a major hit to an already enfeebled right (in states where it wasn't respected to start with).

There's been no such long-running whittling down of the First Amendment with respect to porn. In fact, law after law after law, over the years, has been struck down in places across the country, even in deeply red states like Texas. And when the lower courts uphold a 1A restriction that is contrary to established law, the Supreme Court has been pretty good about smacking those courts down.

That's not to say that will continue forever. But none of the justices, as far as I can tell, believe that internet porn is less protected than printed porn, and printed porn is very clearly protected under existing precedent. And this is one of those areas where even a lot of right-leaning culture warriors won't go - not only because they know how unpopular it would be, but because they know if a court can ban online porn (even if just for children) because some don't like it, there's no principled reason a more liberal state couldn't ban right-wing rhetoric as harmful for children, too.

[hntnhole]

On 3/5/2024 at 10:57 PM, BergenGuy said:

That's why I worry about the future

I would say that I'm concerned, but I don't actually worry. 

There's a hefty chance that women, pissed off over losing autonomy over their own bodies (and their supporters) will turn out in November, just as they have in recent state elections, and decisively ditch the repressive crowd.  The R's have been defeated in a number of states, across the board.  Add to that the traditional Dem base, and the odds aren't all that bad for Nov. 

Plus, now that the double-tongued bastard Majority Leader is ditching, that'll take the air out of the balloon for some of the less-committed R's.  This racing season, they'll all be singing one last stanza of My Old Kentucky Home for that miserable wretch.  

That said, every one of us has to get out and vote these clowns out of office.  Up ballot, down ballot, the whole thing.  

[BootmanLA]

On 3/7/2024 at 11:12 AM, hntnhole said:

Plus, now that the double-tongued bastard Majority Leader is ditching, that'll take the air out of the balloon for some of the less-committed R's.  This racing season, they'll all be singing one last stanza of My Old Kentucky Home for that miserable wretch. 

Unfortunately, all the leading candidates to replace McConnell as the leader of the Senate Republicans are as bad or worse than he is. For all his flaws - and they are legion - McConnell would on occasion sanction bipartisan efforts to solve problems. The next leader, whoever he is, will come from a group who has only known obstruction as the way to respond to anything a Democratic administration wants. And while getting Sinema out of the Senate race shores up one vulnerable seat, we still have to contend with the almost certain loss of Manchin's seat in West Virgina and the possible losses of seats in Montana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Losing Manchin means a tied Senate, so we hold it IF we also keep the presidency. Losing any of the others along with him, unless we miraculously flip either Texas or Florida (both possible but still unlikely), means losing the Senate, and possibly the ability to confirm any judicial nominations. (I wouldn't put it past some of the people running to replace McConnell as majority leader to just refuse to hold confirmation hearings on ANY judges or justices.)

[DallasPozzible]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

(I wouldn't put it past some of the people running to replace McConnell as majority leader to just refuse to hold confirmation hearings on ANY judges or justices.)

Almost certainly true. They may well refuse to consider Biden appointments of any position requiring Senate confirmation. 

[BootmanLA]

16 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

Almost certainly true. They may well refuse to consider Biden appointments of any position requiring Senate confirmation. 

I'm not sure they would hold up *all* appointments - without confirmed leaders of various executive agencies, for instance, government would grind to a halt, and they're finally learning the lesson that as the party to blame for pretty much every government shut down of the last 35 or so years, even Republican voters are quick to blame them accordingly. So I'd expect positions like Secretary of State, etc. to get filled and confirmed, not unanimously, but at least by a reasonable number.

But judges? The Republicans could well decide that we don't need to fill those judgeships; if that slows down the legal process, all the better, because they can use the judges they already control to stymie almost any policy they don't like (by filing suit in North Texas, which then routes all appeals to the reactionary 5th Circuit). And the (only) 3 non-right-wingers on the Supreme Court can't force their colleagues to take up any cases that the right wants to leave in place with the appellate decision.

[brnbk]

On 3/6/2024 at 11:54 AM, hntnhole said:

Isn't it odd how the so-called "Evangelicals" - purportedly following the message of Jesus - don't give a rats ass that their "Second Coming" is centered on a serial rapist, and all the countless other spectacular character flaws he possesses?  

So much for following what they claim as their foundational belief-system.  They're "evangelizing" the direct opposite of what they seem to think is their "belief-system".

The big problem with Protestant-ism fundamentally is that any pastor can steer(manufacture, make ) "theology" of his "church" in the direction he wishes to. There is no need to go back to historical practices and beliefs and faith of the Church. He can pick up a verse in his Bible, the true bible of course being a 16th century English translation (butchery?) and not the original Bible of the 1st century Greek and Latin, and declare it as the "gospel". 

Donald Trump is the modern day Henry VIII of England and Hitler of Germany. Unless we understand the fundamental flaws of Protestantism, the world is going to continue to see such characters...