A bill set to be introduced next month would ban consuming or producing sexual content and punish offenders with prison sentences of up to 20 years and $25,000 fines.

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So they basically just want to abolish free speech? This is the first step in that process. Once they get one law passed about something like porn it makes it super easy to amend that law at any time to include anything the state deems to be “dangerous”.

    • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah porn is the easy target since not many politicians in Oklahoma are going to oppose it. Since it could damage their political image. Nobody wants to be labeled the porno guy/gal in the right wing news.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    While we’re arbitrarily disregarding the constitution, i now declare all assault rifles illegal. Suck my dick, asscunts.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”

    So there goes the majority of mainstream movies too, I guess 🤦

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would propose expanding the second part to include oral and written delivery, not just digital. The only valid form of sexual dialogue is to be dance.

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.

    MOST porn is art because it has a camera as a medium, and it is viewed as “Entertainment”, this bill will have no teeth on arrival.

    My main problem is that this kind of logic is next door neighbors with, “That woman was dressed in a pornographic way! She should be dressed from head to toe in black!”

    Edit: correction

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t this exactly what the Larry Flint case was about already? Sounds like political grand standing, so they can say they did something even if that something is completely moot anyway.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “That woman was dressed in a pornographic way! She should be dressed from head to toe in black!”

      There’s no production there. Though… if we were to accept that it counts for “production” then technically… if you the “viewer” of that person view it in a sexual way, you’d be able to be held by the law as well.

  • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is either something that will only ever be selectively enforced, or designed to be so outrageous they can walk it back to what they actually want and look like they’re compromising.

  • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I imagine there are still brick and mortar stores in Oklahoma that sell porn and sex merchandise. This would ruin their business. What a bunch of idiots. This will never survive a challenge in court.