โฒ 246 โผ Project 2025 wants to send you to prison for watching porn. Laws requiring ID to access NSFW sites have already made porn hard to access in many states. Your browser is next ๐ (lemmy.ml) submitted 2 years ago* by makeasnek@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.world NSFW 18 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17994614 Learn more at defeatproject2025.org
[โ] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 31 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't understand this. The battle to stop people watching porn was lost many thousands of years ago. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago (3 children) Criminalizing porn means that nearly everyone is a criminal. So you can be arrested at any time those in power want to arrest you without having to find a legitimate reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] useyourmainfinger@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's it, you nailed it, that's exactly what they want..! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago I present Exhibit A: Weed. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah that selective enforcement clause is a powerful tool if you're a dickhead permalink fedilink source parent [โ] JustZ@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's exactly right. It's the facts of the case of Mapp v. Ohio. Cops were looking for the boyfriend and evidence of numbers running. They forced the door and came in without a warrant and arrested her for pornography. It was in a box in the basement, she didn't even know it was there. The statute they charged her under, I forgot the exact amount of time, but nobody had been charged under it in like twenty years or something. Jury convicted her in twenty minutes for the porn. The liberal Supreme Court of the day that gave us most of our civil rights, the Earl Warren Court, reversed her conviction based on the illegal, warrantless search. The whole thing was a ploy to get her to testify against her boyfriend, which she ultimately refused to do before her case got tossed out. They didn't care about the porn, it was pretextual. https://ballotpedia.org/Mapp_v._Ohio permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago (3 children) Criminalizing porn means that nearly everyone is a criminal. So you can be arrested at any time those in power want to arrest you without having to find a legitimate reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] useyourmainfinger@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's it, you nailed it, that's exactly what they want..! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago I present Exhibit A: Weed. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah that selective enforcement clause is a powerful tool if you're a dickhead permalink fedilink source parent [โ] JustZ@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's exactly right. It's the facts of the case of Mapp v. Ohio. Cops were looking for the boyfriend and evidence of numbers running. They forced the door and came in without a warrant and arrested her for pornography. It was in a box in the basement, she didn't even know it was there. The statute they charged her under, I forgot the exact amount of time, but nobody had been charged under it in like twenty years or something. Jury convicted her in twenty minutes for the porn. The liberal Supreme Court of the day that gave us most of our civil rights, the Earl Warren Court, reversed her conviction based on the illegal, warrantless search. The whole thing was a ploy to get her to testify against her boyfriend, which she ultimately refused to do before her case got tossed out. They didn't care about the porn, it was pretextual. https://ballotpedia.org/Mapp_v._Ohio permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] useyourmainfinger@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's it, you nailed it, that's exactly what they want..! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago I present Exhibit A: Weed. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago I present Exhibit A: Weed. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago Yeah that selective enforcement clause is a powerful tool if you're a dickhead permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] JustZ@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's exactly right. It's the facts of the case of Mapp v. Ohio. Cops were looking for the boyfriend and evidence of numbers running. They forced the door and came in without a warrant and arrested her for pornography. It was in a box in the basement, she didn't even know it was there. The statute they charged her under, I forgot the exact amount of time, but nobody had been charged under it in like twenty years or something. Jury convicted her in twenty minutes for the porn. The liberal Supreme Court of the day that gave us most of our civil rights, the Earl Warren Court, reversed her conviction based on the illegal, warrantless search. The whole thing was a ploy to get her to testify against her boyfriend, which she ultimately refused to do before her case got tossed out. They didn't care about the porn, it was pretextual. https://ballotpedia.org/Mapp_v._Ohio permalink fedilink source parent