SISEA and Elliquiy?

[TheGlyphstone]

https://www.xbiz.com/news/256391/senators-propose-far-reaching-new-adult-industry-regulations

https://www.xbiz.com/docs/news/256391_SasseMerkleyDEC2020.pdf

https://twitter.com/acvalens/status/1340338322326106112


SESTA-FOSTA didn't have much of an impact here as far as I remember because we already forbid the sort of activity it regulated (Veks can correct me on this when he shows up). But this new bill seems like it could have a much bigger effect if Elliquiy was judged to be a "platform hosting pornography", since many people use, post, or link pornographic imagery of one sort or another here, sometimes rehosting on the Elliquiy Wiki.

[Laughing Hyena]

They'd never get it passed. Even if they did, the supreme court would toss it out as unconstitutional. After all, they've ruled in the past that pornographic drawings count as freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Courts already ruled in favor of said porn industry in 1996 on this topic. What's changed?

[Callie Del Noire]

They'd never get it passed. Even if they did, the supreme court would toss it out as unconstitutional. After all, they've ruled in the past that pornographic drawings count as freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Courts already ruled in favor of said porn industry in 1996 on this topic. What's changed?

Different justices who have much more conservative values

[Beguile's Mistress]

Different justices who have much more conservative values

*nods*  Of course you need to get them to agree to hear the motion in the first place and since there is precedent that might not fly.

[Haibane]

I know nothing about the proposals but just reading the list of items in the first link I can see they are unworkable. I get a sense that these measures are not being proposed to safeguard people being exploited but to kill the online porn industry.

I also think that "uploader" and "uploaded" must apply to the very first instance a video or image is put up on the internet. On E for example that is not the case and 99% of the time members here merely link to other images or have acquired images from existing sites. So by its technical meaning, unless it is an entirely original image, no-one on E is "uploading porn".

[Chulanowa]

Different justices who have much more conservative values

They don't have values, they have interests. Simply put there's no financial gain to be made out of persecuting internet pornography, and so there's no reason for the "conservative" judges to favor it.

compare to say the war on drugs, which DOES provide an extremely profitable industry, private prisons. or the push against abortion, which has the benefit of maintaining poverty and creating a desperate, stressed (and thus malleable) workforce.

stop thinking of US politics in terms of ideologies. Our rulers do not have ideologies. Liberalism is specifically anti-ideological. It's about securing status and capital to generate power, and nothing else. Purely "moralizing' legislation does not do that and gets cast aside as regularly as legislation that purely helps the peasantry.

[Oniya]

Considering how often we see these very vocal ultra-conservative types caught out diddling around in their legal briefs, they're probably aware of how these laws could lead to their own criminal exposure.