Porn Is Protected Speech. Trump’s New Presidency Will Test That Sentiment. The Courts Can Uphold It.
from the we-are-in-for-a-rough-one dept
The die is cast. Donald Trump is heading back to the White House – a remarkable victory. But a lot of people who work in the adult entertainment industry are understandably scared. From the concerns for LGBTQ+ rights under the new Trump presidency to access to reproductive care at a state and national level, the next four years will be a significant challenge.
While all valid concerns that I share, it is the specter of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda that frightens me most. Previously, I’ve written across various outlets, like BestNetTech, to address the “masculine policy” Trump and his new vice president, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, and his allies envision to “make America great again.” Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and the de facto head of Project 2025, a so-called “presidential transition project,” laid out the administration’s position on key culture war issues, such as access to online porn.
Roberts wrote in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, Project 2025’s incendiary policy treatise nearly 1,000 pages long, that their camp believes “pornography” and “pornographers” should be imprisoned and stripped of First Amendment protection. Some folks have characterized Roberts’ words as simply rhetoric, but the past twelve months have verified a coordinated effort to significantly claw back the rights of all sex workers and adult industry firms.
This time around, Donald Trump has surrounded himself with outspoken Christian nationalists who want to demonize and then criminalize sexual expression that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment.
Russell Vought, one of the central architects of Project 2025, was caught on hidden camera a few months ago confirming that the efforts to ban porn will go through a so-called “back door” framework via a patchwork of state-level age verification laws and efforts in a newly GOP-controlled Senate. In addition to that, Vance has supported a porn ban. It was also under Donald Trump’s last term that the FOSTA-SESTA monstrosity that decimated legal sex work on the internet came to fruition. Imagine what will advance under Trump.
Expect to see a renewed effort to advance the Kids Online Safety Act or a beefier version of the bill. The current form of the bill, though supposedly reformed with the input of key LGBTQ+ groups, would make design code the law of the land in an affront to years of case law. As we’ve seen in California, age appropriate design mandates rarely hold up under strict scrutiny. But, relying on the history of FOSTA-SESTA, the Kids Online Safety Act in any form will be a legal flashpoint.
For example, when the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and other civil society organizations sued to render FOSTA unconstitutional, the appeals court in that case, though upholding it, affirmed that it’s overly broad and needs to be narrowly tailored to best address cases of online trafficking while respecting free speech rights. And it’s up to the courts to essentially hold a Trump presidency accountable for any sort of unilateral action taken against legally operating pornography platforms.
The conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court is, truly, the only check and balance on key freedom of speech issues moving forward when it comes to the next four years. And it begins in January. Oral arguments are scheduled in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Paxton for January 15, 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union took up the case due to expansive First Amendment implications associated with age verification laws like Texas House Bill (HB) 1181, which specifically targets online adult website operators with requirements to verify the age of users who navigate from local IP addresses. Existing case law suggests that a law like HB 1181 is unconstitutional and clashes with other rulings.
If the Free Speech Coalition is successful, this renders all other age verification laws that specifically target porn websites and require users to submit ID cards or other types of identity verification unconstitutional.
A win at SCOTUS for online speech could set the tone for a successful series of legal victories during Trump’s imperial presidency. That is all we can hope for, right?
Michael McGrady covers the tech and legal sides of the online porn business.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, age verification, donald trump, free speech, jd vance, kosa, porn, project 2025
Comments on “Porn Is Protected Speech. Trump’s New Presidency Will Test That Sentiment. The Courts Can Uphold It.”
Between this and the repeal of section 230, this term’s gonna be full of anxiety-inducing things.
Really hope the courts are gonna stick to the first amendment streak regarding this topic like they have so far.
Re:
Why would they?
Re: Re:
Hell if I know. I’m praying for miracles these days.
Re: Re:
Because maybe it’s what they actually believe? SCOTUS hasn’t exactly been shy about overturning other established rulings and laws, but speech has been mostly untouched. These are people, not Trump’s automatons.
Re: Re: Re:
They have even ruled against some of Trump’s laws and cases in the past, I recall.
I doubt they’re going to go into lockstep on everything he does from now on, when they didn’t already do so the innumerable amount of times they had the perfect opportunity to.
Re: Re: Re:2
On the other hand, the court did give Trump sweeping immunity from prosecution for virtually anything he does while he’s president. I can’t think of a better way to show that they’re on his side than to effectively say “you’re a king, Donny”.
Re: Re: Re:3
So, they’re neutral.
Re: Re: Re:3
At this point I’m convinced SCOTUS is consolidating power for themselves rather than anyone else.
Re: Re: Re:4 A brutally effective power BEHIND the throne, but not the ones in it
They don’t really have any though? Not to say they can’t indirectly cause damage by passing some heinously bad rulings, but as the final court in the US legal system they can’t really proactively do anything themselves as they’re stuck responding to the legal actions/questions that end up before them.
What they can do though is provide cover for other people/groups to cause damage by legislating from the bench to grant immunity and/or give the greenlight to laws that they like.
Re: Re: Re:5
Their power is more passive than anything, but still highly influential.
Re: Re: Re:6
Oh absolutely, I’m not denying that, just pointing out that in order for them to exercise what power they have someone else has to do most of the work first.
Re: Re: Re:
They’re a political body that’s been compromised by fascists. They know damn well to keep their masks on until it’s too late.
'A positive portrayal of a non-CIS, non-het character? That's pornographic!'
While pointing out that content and behavior related to porn is likely to be covered under the first amendment and therefore making any attempts to ‘ban’ it unconstitutional might be a factual argument the number of people who will be willing to stand up for porn and those involved with it publicly is going to be rather low, something those gunning for it count on.
Given that a better argument would perhaps be pointing out how grossly misused the term ‘pornographic’ has been in recent history, as it’s been and is being used to be shorthand for basically any content that conservatives don’t like but which they can’t honestly admit to why they don’t like it without outing themselves as rabidly bigoted.
‘They’re trying to get porn out of schools’ hits very differently than ‘They’re trying to get any content that portrays non-white and/or non-heterosexual characters in a positive light, and/or portrays white people negatively out of schools’ even as the latter is far more an accurate description of what’s happening.
Someone hasn't seen Avenue Q...
I knew Trump was an idiot, but attempting to stop American Internet users from accessing pornography is a very special kind of idiotic.
If my experience as a forum admin in the Spambot Wars is anything to go off of, I’m pretty confident that demand for pornography will lead to the very quick development of a way around any government effort to restrict Americans’ access to online pornography. Remember how YouTube tried to crack down on ad blockers and it only led to more people learning about ad blockers and the ad blockers themselves being updated to get around YouTube’s countermeasures? To me, this is less a question of what the law says and more a question of how much the government is going to waste trying to enforce said law (assuming it’s enacted and upheld); a law is only as effective as the people’s willingness to obey it and the government’s capacity to crack down on violators.
Re:
I mean, the project handbook thingymajig wants to enforce it with prison sentences (and even death sentences I hear)
Granted, given how much of Trump’s own base likely consume the stuff, it sounds like an incredibly stupid and shortsighted attempt to make.
Doubt they’d be able to push it past just requiring verification, and even then that’s not gonna be very popular.
Re: Re:
“Doubt they’d be able to push it past just requiring verification, and even then that’s not gonna be very popular.”
banning stuff will always be ineffective to some degree sometimes it back fires
Re: Re: Re: excuses to hand to the usual suspects
“Heck, I’ve got to see just why this is so bad for me!”
and “It’s my duty to find out everything about this stuff so I can warn my congregation against it!”
and that hilarious one from Epeli Hau’ofa’s Tales of the Tikongs, Bopeep’s Bells, to wit:
“Finally, taking his cue from benighted Melanesian cargo cult leaders, Toki assembled a harem of the ten loveliest ladies in Chamer Island. He proclaimed his spiritual loathing for fornication but declared it a necessity that he experience the suffering and agony of sin in order to transcend earthly pleasures.”
Re: Re:
Age verification bills have been being passed with large majorities in most states that have passed them, it probably would pass with a large bi-partisan majority in congress in the event that the Supreme Court upholds the one on their docket (or gives a path of what they would uphold). Unlike a ban where the administration could go after producers or consumers, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of pushback since people just go to the first overseas option in their search results.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, hence why I see it as about as close to a “ban” as they’re gonna get.
Sucks, but, eh, at this point I accept that global age-verification schemes to access the internet are inevitable.
Re: Re: Re:2
It depends on the courts, if Trump chooses someone zealous about going after porn as his AG, they could go after US hosted adult websites using existing obscenity laws already on the books and see what degree the courts are willing to go along with that regardless of what could or couldn’t be passed through congress.
Re: Re: Re:3
Guess we’ll see.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Websites outside of the United States do not have to comply
And this includes pirate IPTV sites that include porn channels in their offerings
Sites in China that offer porn channels as part of the package do not have to obey USA lWs
Re: Re: Re:2
Fuck off, criminal act-inciting troll.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
VIEWING pirate IPTV is not a crime in the United States, and not likely to change soon because MAGA types are not friendly towards copyright.
Just a couple of years ago some MAGA types introduced a bill that would have reduced maximum copyright to 28 years.
The only countries where it is a criminal offence right now are Britain, Italy, Japan, South Africa and the UAE.
They are illegal in North and South Korea but not for copyright. In the South it would be illegal because it is illegal to view TV from the North and in the North it is illegal to watch TV from the South.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actually, viewing pirate streams is a misdemeanor (petty crime) in the US, while providers of those streams are very much committing a felony. If you’re going to incite criminal acts, at least get some knowledge about the laws you’re encouraging others to break.
Re: Re:
Shame-centric communities always produce some of the most vile, toxic people imaginable. People who go to extreme lengths in controlling others just to lessen their own personal feelings of guilt.
Christian Nationalists are one of the premier faces of a shame-centric community.
Re:
As everyone knows:
Re:
It’s not really about making a successful anti-porn blockade to DEFEND THE CHILDREN etc, it’s a salvo to carve out a special label they can apply whenever they want to get anything removed from the mainstream.
The expected side benefit is that if porn is illegal but poorly blocked it will be easy to do a quick investigation into Anyone who is no longer in favor with The Ruling Party, dig up some porn/some things they will call porn/pretend to have found porn anyhow and use the charges as a bludgeon to get compliance and keep everyone else in line.
Re: Re:
Porn is, and always will be, the canary in the coal mine of free speech. If you want proof, look at how book banners across the country have used “get porn out of our schools” as a pretext to remove books that aren’t even remotely pornographic.
Here’s what I see happening: the US-hosted services will be hit hard by national age verification. They’ll counter that at first by serving up more ads, from non-US ad services.
Meanwhile, overseas services will start to buy the content from the US services and host it without age verification, and separately, someone will make a killing off of selling VPN access to these services.
So the stated end goal will be sidestepped, while earning a lot of people a lot more money than currently, and additionally decreasing the privacy and security of the American people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Or services could start using Bitcoin or use a roundabout way on PayPal like some pirate IPTV services do now.
Some use personal accounts with ever changing Email addresses where you send the money and then the money is transferred to the company account.
This sidesteps any problems they might run into with credit card companies.
If IPTV sites can do that, anyone can
Re: Re:
Are you sure you’re not in danger with how much of a boner you got for IPTV?
So, no TikTok, no porn, no abortion, no LGBT, else you go to prison?
What’s possibly the size of theses prisons, twice the size of the US?
It would be much easier to starting producing Zyklon B again.
Re:
It’s like the “If you’re [insert anything outside the white, christian norm here], you’ll go to hell” nonsense.
If that’s the case, Hell sounds a whole lot nicer than heaven lol.
Re: Re:
“You get to spend eternity with us!” is not the hard sell for Heaven that conservative Christian assholes think it is.
Re: Walls work both ways
To make a sufficiently large prison simply build a WALL at USA’s borders…
Re: Re:
That would really suck for cities and other places in the US that loathe Trump and the Christofascists, like NYC…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Then you post bail and flee the country
Arrest warrants are on computers which can be hacked.
Just use Tor and VPN to hide your IP address
Re: Re:
Best research which countries have extradition treaties with the US, buddy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why does TD platform a sex-trafficking and prostitution advocate?
Just curious.
Re: You’re making a lot of assumptions here…
1) There’s a very clear distinction between legitimate forms of porn/sex work and sex trafficking. One is of consent, the other isn’t. TD supports the former, not the later. (And no, CP does not count as apart for the former).
2) As crude as it may seem, but porn is a good measurement of a free speech. And why banning it is such a slippery slope. It sets a dangerous precedent for free speech and expression, because by extension it releases the floodgates of what is acceptable and what is offensive. Soon it would stop being whether or not it is considered pornographic, and more so what you find offensive, like SFW depictions of a queer relationship.
Re: Re:
(Sighs)…
What Do We Do?
Re: Re:
like…what do we even do?!
no one is gonna hear our voices except the internet and our voices on the internet now-a-days is just useless!
Re:
Why do you post straw men?
Just curious.
Actually, I’m not. It’s obvious why.
Re:
To be completely honest with you, I don’t think BestNetTech has ever platformed the worst President the US has ever had, nor does Mike want to.
Re:
To be completely honest with you, I don’t think BestNetTech has ever platformed the worst President the US has ever had, nor does M1k3 want to.
…and yet the ones pushing the ban are probably furious fappers themselves.
Re:
Every accusation, a confession—much like how conservative Christian preachers who rail against “groomers” are often sexual predators.
Re:
Who are ashamed of it because that’s the lessons they were taught in the community they came from.
They believe they can make their shame go away by eliminating the very existence of all that tempts them and reminds them of the temptation. No matter how many people it hurts in the process.
Only half the story
Why are people covering Project 2025, not laying it all out?
It’s right there in their own FAQ
They’re don’t intend to stop with producers and distributors, they want to criminalize consumption too.
Now combine that with age verification.
it’s not just a backdoor ban, it’s a map to your door.
Re:
Because trying to do that is probably the dumbest idea imaginable, as they’d either be unable to enforce it, or have to deal with arresting like, I don’t know, a pretty big portion of the entire country’s population?
Re: Re:
Something like that doesn’t have to be broadly enforced to be effective, and in more ways than one.
Like how they admitted they don’t need to fire all the normies. Just enough to make the rest afraid.
And I can easily picture picture a consumption ban being wielded very selectively: like how cops can give white straight kids a slap on the wrist for small offenses, but can turn around and use the exact same thing as an excuse to throw the book at ‘undesirable’ / ‘criminal’ ‘types.’
Or it could be used as a foot in the door to investigate otherwise law-abiding (but politically troublesome) citizens.
Or is my mind just still in a really dark place right now.
Re: Re: Re:
This is pretty much fascism in a nutshell: They don’t have to terrorize enough people—only enough that everyone else turns their backs when the fascists come for the next victim. They count on self-serving apathy; it’s why community organizing is going to be hella important for the next four years (and beyond).
Re: Re: Re:2 Learning from history because some want to repeat it
They don’t have to terrorize enough people—only enough that everyone else turns their backs when the fascists come for the next victim. They count on self-serving apathy; it’s why community organizing is going to be hella important for the next four years (and beyond).
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller
Re: Re: Re:
Eh, I don’t know. They kinda would have to actually enact it first.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Comstock Act is still on the books, isn’t it?
Didn’t maga want to use it against mifepristone? I’m pretty sure in the past it was used against abortifacients, contraceptives, porn, toys, and sex ed materials– at least.
It was originally very broad. And as far as I know, it’s up to the courts to limit it, because I don’t see it getting repealed.
I don’t know how hard it would really be for maga to start using it against any and all materials they deem ‘obscenity.’
There’s a lot I don’t know right now.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes…
…and yes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Then watch VPN usage go way up
And there is also software to wipe anything from your devices that can be used as evidence
And remember, foreign websites are not subject to American laws
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Then you find a site outside the USA with no age verification and then use VPN and Tor to hide yourself
I use that on here because I know the Feds are certainly looking at my posts because my past posts. Using VPN Tor combined makes someone all but untraceable.
Re: Re:
“I know the Feds are certainly looking at my posts because my past posts.” LMFAO
Re: Re: Re:
People severely overestimate the significance of what they spout online, don’t they?
In what way is restricting pornography a “masculine” policy? People who consider themselves masculine are probably the biggest consumers and proponents of pornography, including all forms of same-sex pornography, even if they don’t discuss it openly.
Realistically, I think this is a religious policy, meant to appease certain vocal religious groups—whose members probably don’t actually believe in it, the same way people don’t actually believe in many of the religious teachings they pretend to. (For example, ask a Catholic if they’ve ever eaten human flesh; the church is 100% clear that the correct answer is “yes” and it’s meant literally, but very few non-priests will admit it.)
Re:
I don’t know if it’s what the author was referring to or not, but I’m vaguely aware that in some of the culty-er dudebro circles, they tell themselves wanking degrades or diminishes one’s masculinity. Somehow.
Re: Re:
Oh good lord. They’re people who think the act of male ejaculation gets rid of your body’s fuel to make muscle and be masculine.
Gym-bro science is hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:
Yup. As any real scientist can tell you, any kind of sexual activity, including masturbation, provides about the same amount of exercise as walking a mile in 20 minutes.
Re: Re:
“they tell themselves wanking degrades or diminishes one’s masculinity”
It’s one of the topics Dr Strangelove takes aim at. (Besides fluoridation-as-commie-plot and other such …
“- Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper: Women uh… women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh… I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
– Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
– Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper: But I… I do deny them my essence.”
Watch it some time. It seems made for the occasion.
Re:
The first start might be to look at context
In context, the masculine policy is referencing an entire suite of Project 2025 reforms, of which one is the porn ban. The masculine policy line echoes the messaging of the Trump campaign and right wing greviences.
Any new CDA (the original language was formally taken off the books 20 years ago) will be harder to enforce
The rich who can afford to buy homes abroad and park computers there will never be censored as they can make encrypted connections to them
What the feds can/will do aside under a Trump administration, another reason that it all comes to the courts is at least some red state will likely attempt a full on ban of porn. While it didn’t pass, we already saw the first bill along those lines in Oklahoma during the last legislative year, and there will probably be more serious attempts at state laws either this legislative session or next (especially if the Supreme Court rules on age verification in a way that invites legal challenges to adult content in general), and if any were to pass they would quickly work their way through the court system.
Re:
So…We’re Doomed?
Re: Re:
Not yet, far from it. We keep pressing on.
If they’re unrelenting, we must be unrelenting too.
It’s past the time for sadness, it’s time for rage and action. (No, not the violent kind.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
But We Only Have 2 Months Until Are Fates On Freedom Are Decided, One Of My Favorite Youtubers QUIT When Trump Won!
STUFF LIKE THIS IS WHY PEOPLE SAY I WANT TO MOVE TO CANADA!
As For Saddness…Well…This Mantaged To Calm Us All Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oNb_px0wfc&t=31s&pp=ygUmc3RldmUgYnVybnMgd2FudHMgeW91IHRvIHRha2UgYSBicmVhdGg%3D
Re: Re: Re:2
Hey, so, quick question, and I’m asking not out of spite or annoyance, but out of genuine curiosity: Why do you capitalize the first letter of every word like that?
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s a Habbit Of Mine…
Re: Re: Re:4
Again, this is sincere curiosity: Why? I mean, it’s not exactly an accepted “style” anywhere but Internet forums—and even then, it’s still treated with low-level contempt. I’ve never understood why people type like that, and I’d love for you to help me understand it. I promise that I’m not trying to mock or belittle you here; this is me being genuinely curious about this specific subject and hoping for an honest and sincere answer.
Re: Re: Re:5
Again, A Habbit of mine…
I’m not an Expert…
Re: Re: Re:5
And I’m Trying to work on it okay?
Re: Re: Re:
Fascists want people to give up. The bastards rely on apathy from the people who would otherwise resist. If you’re alive, you can resist; if you can resist, you can act; if you can act, you can save those who need saving.
The institutions of government won’t save us. The capitalists and the ultra-wealthy won’t save us. Only we can save ourselves.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not Even Fight For The Future, The ACLU, OR The EFF?
Great!
Re: Re: Re:3
Reliance on any institution means that if the institution fails, all who relied on it will fail. You can support institutions that are doing good work on a larger scale and still look to organize local communities to do the work that needs to be done in those communities.
Support the EFF, the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or any other organization that you believe is doing good work. But don’t bank on them always being there or always winning. They can help you, but they can’t save you. Only we can save ourselves.
Re: Re: Re:4
Problem. I Am Not A Fighter And I Am Weak.
Re: Re: Re:5
You don’t have to be a fighter. You just have to resist. In an age of hate and despair, love is an act of resistance. If you show love to your neighbors by helping them any way you can, that is resistance, for the fascists want you to stay separated from the people that could help you. No one act will save us all; it will be the good deeds of many people, and the compassion and love generated by those good deeds, that will save us.
Resistance is not inherently about violence. It is about showing people a better way to live. Whatever you can do to demonstrate that is all you need to be part of a resistance. The smallest acts can still have a grand effect.
Re: Re: Re:6
…Holy Crap that Was An Amazing Speech…Now I Am Hoping That You Respond To Anything I Say…
Re: Re: Re:6
Ya Know, We Should Talk More Often.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Oh yes, and that worked out so well the last hundreds of times you tried it before right?
Just look how it put W. and Cheney in prison for starting a war for no reason! Just look how it stopped the NSA from proving the 4th amendment is null and void! Just look how it prevented a spray-tanned infantile jackass from becoming president back in 2016! And how it stopped him from doing it again!
You useless kids are so full of shit it’s nauseating. The whole problem is you never fight. You just put on some performative dance and then walk away while telling everyone how you were the bigger people.
Either actually do something for once or shut up.
Re: Re: Re:7
What do you think they should kill first?
…okay, the phrasing there may seem a bit off to you. Give me a few paragraphs to explain.
Your idea of fighting the Trump administration is obviously leading to the endorsement of political violence. Such violence will beget more violence, which will require an escalation of violence. That means a lot of people will die.
Do you know how people who want to be on the front lines of any military action train when they join the military? They’re taught by their leaders to learn how to kill. To do that, they’re taught to see “the enemy” not as people, but as targets in need of being destroyed. Soldiers are taught to become sociopaths—to kill without thinking twice and move on to the next target. The average person would probably hate the act of killing another person; the average soldier is taught to love and embrace it.
Any notion of using violence against the government means going up against trained killers. Differences in firepower notwithstanding, you’d be talking about non-military American citizens turning themselves into sociopaths. Put aside the notion of asking Americans to kill other Americans for the sake of politics, which is really fucked up to begin with, and consider this: You’d be asking people to give up part of their humanity—to become sociopathic murderers—so they can kill as easily as they breathe on behalf of your selfish desires. And given how you keep insulting people who commit to nonviolent resistance, you seem more than willing to neg them into doing exactly that.
So what do you think the people you want to fight your fight for you should kill first: their “enemies” or their humanity?
Re: Re: Re:8
You’re already experiencing political violence. Or have you already forgotten Pulse Nightclub, Charlottesville and Rittenhouse?
Those guys weren’t even trained soldiers, but they had no problem killing people.
Your interpretive dance and pink hats aren’t going to stop bullets. And in the very near future, real people are going to be facing bullets – but probably not you because you’re privileged enough to put on meaningless theater performances and then pat yourself on the back for it.
Re: Re: Re:9
You can keep trying to make me play a fascist’s game, but I’m not doing that shit and you can’t make me. If and when violence becomes necessary to protect myself or others from actual physical violence, I will use it. But I will not go around hurting people—killing people, even!—because you demand that I play by their rules and “get ’em first” or whatever the fuck.
I’m under no illusions that pussy hats and drum circles will beat fascists. You can stop going down that road because it’s a dead-end argument that you’ve tried before and it didn’t make me budge an inch. You can also stop with the attempts to emotionally manipulate me into committing preëmptive political violence; they didn’t work before and they won’t work in the future. I know that mere protests won’t win the day—but neither will physical violence, because the fascists will use any excuse to crush its opposition and they have more guns (and far bigger guns) than said opposition.
I’m angry that Trump is about to start a second term. But I’m not going to channel that anger into violence only because you demand I do so on your behalf. I’d very much prefer to channel that anger into something more productive that will be of much better use over the next four years, like organizing communities in ways that will let them exert sociopolitical power whenever and wherever they can (and without needing to use violence). That won’t be the answer you want from me. It’s the only answer you’re getting. Well, that, and this:
I am willing to be your shield, but I will never be your sword.
Re: Re: Re:10
What I “demand” people do is take the threats seriously for once. But you never will. Your “organizing” is limited to some fancy celebrity concert.
People need protection. Not platitudes. And you’ve never been willing to provide it once it begins to look like your own comforts might be denied to you for more than a few hours.
So do go and fuck off with your meaningless gestures of “resistance” while real people are literally in danger of dying.
Re: Re: Re:11
I literally mentioned organizing communities in ways that allow them to exert sociopolitical power when and where they can. A Taylor Swift concert isn’t that, and I would never say otherwise.
And if people want to buy a gun or organize in ways that openly resist fascists, I’m all for that—so long as it isn’t about killing for the sake of killing. Your entire schtick has been walking up to the line of declaring war against Republicans and begging me (and anyone else who will listen) to fire the first shot. You want a war? Go start one yourself. I’m not about to do it for you, and I’m not going to advocate for it.
You keep making the mistake that I am wholly non-violent. I’m not. I would use violence to protect myself and my loved ones. What I won’t do is kill someone I think might be a threat sometime in the future because of their political/religious beliefs. Right-wing preachers talk a whole hell of a lot about how much they wish the state would execute queer people like me. But I’m not going to go and kill one of them because of their rhetoric—or because of your (failed) attempts to emotionally manipulate me over not stopping them from espousing that rhetoric.
When I talk about playing a fascist’s game, using violence as a preëmptive assault against “the opposition” and crushing “dissent” is pretty much exactly what I mean. Fascists will do exactly that to maintain their grip on society. I refuse to play that game, even if it means my death (which I’m sure you’d be happy to celebrate) because—and pay close attention to this—I am not, and will never be, a unthinking sociopathic instrument of destruction for you or anyone else.
I will protect people. If necessary, I will use violence to protect them. But I will not use violence as a “preëmptive strike”. All the guilt tripping and “what about queer people” emotional manipulation and name-calling and begging on your knees for me to start a war will NEVER change that about me. I know what it’s like to be someone who uses violence as a “solution” to non-violent problems—and I never want to be that person again.
I am willing to be your shield, but I will never be your sword.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You’ve been destroyed at the ballot box. The vast majority of the American People don’t agree with your perspective. You should seek to reconcile with us, rather than raging impotently.
Re: Re: Re:3
1) “vast majority” is not so much a stretch as simple bullshit.
2) no way do I abandon my values and beliefs about what is right to “reconcile” myself with fascists.
Fascism always loses in the long run but it always returns when enough people let their guard down. Or reconcile themselves to it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Their “vast majority” is about as overblown as their claims about Trump’s supposed competence.
Do they have a majority? Yes.
Is it a big one? Nope.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Cope & seethe, loser.
Re: Re: Re:6
If it makes you annoyed, gladly!
Re: Re: Re:5
And yet they won.
What does that tell you about their opposition’s potency? And what does history tell you about how the opposition’s success rate with successfully battling power-grabbers before like W. and Trump’s first time?
They don’t need to have the numbers if the numbers will just lie down and let them do what they want.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
That very last line is why you will fail like before.
You’re going to put on pink hats and yell at buildings a few times and then leave and congratulate each other for being such good “resisters.”
And the fascists will keep winning because no one will fight against them.
Re: Re:
Don’t know about the rest of you but I’m not giving up porn. I don’t consider trump term 2 to be legitimate so I will not comply with their hypocritical morality laws.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
And what about pirate IPTV sites that offer porn including one with over 4000 channels
Viewing pirate IPTV streams will likely not become illegal a some maga types are not very much fans of copyright maximimalists.
The last of the copyright maximalists, sherrod brown, got defeated.
Just find an IPTV service that suits you since viewing pirate IPTV stteams will very likely stay legal for the time being
Anything using IPTV Smarters (which most services use) needs a connection of at least 25 megabits to work
Weirdly, the fact that whats left of Twitter would be screwed if stringent laws on adult content were enforced might be the single largest deterrent for the incoming administration with regards to content regulations on adults.
Regardless though there will certainly be expansions to “harmful to minors” type bills though (probably expanding on what content they consider “harmful to minors), and expansions on age verification laws using such requirements especially if the Supreme Court upholds FSC v Paxton.
Deep down, I kind of want to see them succeed, if only because it would mean places like 4chan—i.e., hotbeds of right-wing bullshittery—would likely turn on the bastards for daring to take away their fap fuel. The schadenfreude would be delicious.
But I’m not so far gone that I’m genuinely rooting for that outcome. I follow too many artists who create lewd/NSFW art to ever seriously consider being on the side of people who want to ban that stuff.
Re:
The only upside there’d be to them succeeding is how quickly it’d blow up their voter base.
Re: Re: blowing the base
Probably not so much. The voter base is surely filled with people who would deny enjoying such material. The same principle applies to child sex abuse, the very people inveighing against it are the ones most likely doing it.
In that I think the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic church may be closely aligned, even if there are differences on other topics.
(yeah, preview is still borken)
Why Does NO One Listen?
They can't catch a break.
Come on, these dudes can’t attract a woman so they need to do something with that energy. Only for the zealots to take that away too?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
mandicious hyperbole
Everything you have stated in this article is nothing more than Mandatious hyperbole And feeling people full With a fear based ideology. so you put control. There’s not one Woman in America has lost their right to abortion not one, as a matter of fact, the two women who died supposedly from not having an abortion that they were supposed to get died Because they did not have an abortion, What they actually died from was the abortion pill Those exact same pills that we republicans had been telling you that they’re bad for you, So what they actually died from was the morning after pill not because they didn’t have an abortion
Trump has more laws protecting the gay community than any president in history Opposition to the Equality Act: Despite support from almost every segment of the U.S. population and a majority of Republicans, President Trump opposed the Equality Act. In May, the House passed the Equality Act, voting to guarantee critical non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people among other crucial rights.
Appointed anti-LGBTQ judges: Trump has appointed anti-LGBTQ judges with alarming anti-LGBTQ records to appointments at every level of the judicial system, including anti-equality Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and federal nominees Kacsmaryk, Mateer, Bounds, Vitter. Menashi and others.
So I’m going to ask you guys to set aside your confirmation bias your Texas sharpshooter fallacies Just once in a while set aside the collectives box that you have trapped yourself in and think for yourselves once in awhile it’s not that hard but I’ll debate anybody anytime
Re:
I assume you’re talking about the two pregnant women who died in Texas—Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain—about whom ProPublica recently published stories. The ProPublica stories have plenty of evidence to back up their claims that those two women died as a direct result of hospitals being unwilling to perform even a life-saving abortion due to Texas’s strict abortion ban. If you want to counter those claims and prove your own correct, you will need some extraordinary evidence.
As for the rest of your comment: Collect your thoughts a little better, then get back to us when you can present them in a way that makes a coherent point.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Very insightful. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this.
Re:
If you’re intent on using big words that you don’t understand, AT LEAST learn to spell them properly.
I believe the term you’re trying to use is “mendacious”.
The internet provides numerous ways to check your spelling. It might be wise to avail yourself of them to avoid looking like an idiot.
Re:
What does the word ‘mandicious’ mean?
Re:
In the case of one of those two women, she had a miscarriage, showing that her abortion was spontaneous, not medical. If you’re going to troll, can you not do it on the corpses of unborn children?
I have seen quite a few saying that they only vote for Trump to “get rid of woke censorship”, especially as it concerns to Japanese media.
Well, I guess now they are about to find out about the leopards eating their faces.
For instance, credit card companies in bed with the likes of the NCOSE have already been using their power to force manga, anime, games and visual novels to censor over in Japan, seeing all Japanese media as simply porn. Of course, these Trump voters immediately blame the “woke mob” even though it is those they are supposedly supporting that are the ones really doing it.
Pointing this out to them only get you either pedantic responsens or they cry out “fake news” or something to that effect.
And now it is going to get a whole lot worse. And those who wanted to “stick it to censorship” only have themselves to blame.
Re:
A lot of them. Rev says desu, raging golden eagle, arch warhammer, yellowflash2, chibi reviews, itsagundam and many more stupidly believe the left are the only reason certain anime and related products have been censored even if it’s only sold in japan when both sides favor this which is why neither one made a serious attempt to rein in payment processors. They forgot that andrew torba and matt walsh have labeled anime known for being “ecchi” a.k.a just some nudity at best as full blown porn.
A porn ban will extend into a hentai ban, the GOP does not see a difference and they’ll likely pressure japan to change their laws domestically too and with PM shigeru ishiba in charge I say it’s very likely.
Re: Re:
“A porn ban will extend into a hentai ban, the GOP does not see a difference and they’ll likely pressure japan to change their laws domestically too and with PM shigeru ishiba in charge I say it’s very likely.”
While I perhaps wasn’t clear enough, I said that they are already doing this, and it is not limited to just ecchi and hentai. It is anything that fits their very loose definition of porn that is being affected.
It has already forced some outlets to close due to the strict demands they put on the Japanese content industry.
https://x.com/KenAkamatsu/status/1853771600828809490
I just hope the new CDA does not bring the stuff the last one did
There was someone in Usenet who so badly wanted to screw up the 1996 Olympics in protest of that they were advocating boycotts or Olympics and Olympic sponsors and were spewing things like “America sucks” and “I hate America” in Usenet newsgroups, and in all caps too
I sometimes wonder if these people, whoever they were, had something to do with the Olympic Park Bombing, given how badly they wanted to screw the Olympics to protest the CDA
I suspect they were from Australia because they were calling on Australia to boycott the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. They were calling for Australians to call their government and demand a boycott of the 1996 Olympics.
With LA getting the 2028 Summer Olympics and Salt Lake possibly getting the 2034 Olympics I don’t want to see someone try to screw up the Olympics like what was tried for the 1996 Atlanta Games
Re:
Unless one of them was domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph, I seriously doubt they had anything to do with that bombing.
Thinking about making any big purchases in the next year? DO IT NOW. Prices are going to SOAR once Florida Man takes office, if not sooner. Between the tariffs and the deportation of all the cheap labor in this country, the cost of EVERYTHING is going to go up. COUNT ON IT.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
homeimprovementservices
nvesting in strategic renovations can significantly boost your home’s market value and appeal to potential buyers. Enhancing key areas like the kitchen 👩🍳 and bathroom 🛁, creating open and well-lit spaces 🌞, and incorporating energy-efficient upgrades 💡 are excellent ways to make your property more attractive. Simple updates such as modern fixtures, landscaping 🌷, and smart home technology 📲 not only add immediate appeal but also provide long-term savings for eco-conscious buyers. A thoughtful renovation plan tailored to buyer preferences can transform your home into a desirable, high-value asset in the competitive real estate market.
#homeimprovement #homerenovation #realestate #curbappeal #increasehomevalue #kitchenremodel #bathroomremodel #energyefficiency #smarthome #interiordesign
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
homeimprovementservices
nvesting in strategic renovations can significantly boost your home’s market value and appeal to potential buyers. Enhancing key areas like the kitchen 👩🍳 and bathroom 🛁, creating open and well-lit spaces 🌞, and incorporating energy-efficient upgrades 💡 are excellent ways to make your property more attractive. Simple updates such as modern fixtures, landscaping 🌷, and smart home technology 📲 not only add immediate appeal but also provide long-term savings for eco-conscious buyers. A thoughtful renovation plan tailored to buyer preferences can transform your home into a desirable, high-value asset in the competitive real estate market.
#homeimprovement #homerenovation #realestate #curbappeal #increasehomevalue #kitchenremodel #bathroomremodel #energyefficiency #smarthome #interiordesign
A win at SCOTUS for online speech could set the tone for a successful series of legal victories during Trump’s imperial presidency. That is all we can hope for, right?
And What If A Win Like That Doesn’t Happen? What Then?
Re:
Then we keep fighting from there.
Re: Re:
Mind Telling Me HOW?!
Please?
How Can We Keep Fighting If The Surpreme Court Gives Free Speech An L?!
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not my job to tell you how, I’m not an advocacy group or a lawyer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fuck…Is There ANY Experts That Can Give Us Awnsers?!
Anyone?!
Re: Re: Re:
Mind Telling Me HOW?! Please?
There is no ‘HOW’ on our end. It’s on them to enforce the shit they create. Let me help point out the critical flaw – logistics. How would you enforce a porn ban?
Block it at the ISP level?
Block it at the DNS level?
Force endpoint software to do it?
What exactly do you block?
What about current methods to circumvent geo-blocking?
Age verification? (AKA the sucker’s bet)
We’ve seen that movie before, and despite all the hype, nothing was delivered.
None of these things have likely been thought through to the point where anything is enforceable or even executable at scale.
Consider that Marijuana is illegal at the Federal level. It hasn’t stopped half of the country from saying otherwise. The only effect it has had was the Feds having to outsource work requiring a security clearance to contractors at a premium, rather than having the talent in-house.
Just like building a wall where a structure like that can’t work, not to mention putting Mexico on the hook for the bill.
Just like deporting millions of ‘illegals’ – if you can’t keep up with border jumpers as things are, how much staff would be required to not only maintain status quo, but deport this shitload of people? And if you could come up with the people to execute the plan, do you think they’d do it for $10/hr?
Just like ‘closing the border,’ as if the open/closed sign has ever meant anything.
Just like enforcing ‘tough on crime/mandatory minimums’ for drug users – prisons aren’t free.
Just like enforcing bans on homlessness. Where do you put them? Jail? Prisons aren’t free for this either.
If these things were simple to solve with simple solutions, it would’ve been done decades ago. Sticking a bronzer-covered dipshit in the drivers seat doesn’t change any of that, despite what he might think personally. And the SCOTUS saying you can’t say ‘X’ is meaningless unless there’s a way to prevent you from saying ‘X.’
Re: Re: Re:2
The same way it’s being done without age verification laws: You put pressure on payment processors to stop doing business with any website that hosts any kind of sexual content.
Re: Re: Re:3
from what i’ve seen…no one wants age verification laws but…yeaaaaaah…
Re: Re: Re:3
Sure, but that misses the persecution of consumption. I’ve also my doubts the banks would be in the mood or have the resources to go after anyone who might send donations related to porn – not to mention most people don’t pay for porn.
Re: Re: Re:3
I mean, you’d enforce a porn ban the same way you currently enforce child porn bans. What’s the difference, except the content?
Re: Re: Re:4
I don’t know, do I look like an expert?
Re: Re: Re:2
Which means What?
I Ment On How Do We Fight Back, Like What Do We Do If The SCOTUS Does Not Agree With Us?
If the Free Speech Coalition is successful, this renders all other age verification laws that specifically target porn websites and require users to submit ID cards or other types of identity verification unconstitutional.
What If We FAIL On This?
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh, for the love of…
Do you really think everyone here has all the answers? Because I can assure you that we don’t. Nobody does. We can’t know for sure if this effort by the FSC will succeed or fail, even if we believe it should succeed. And if it fails, where we go from there will depend on the ruling and any limitations it places on efforts to oppose age verification laws.
Also: For fuck’s sake, stop using title case for your comments. It makes you look ignorant, it slows down reading time, and it’s generally annoying as fuck besides.
Also also: We’re not your therapists. If you want to endlessly spill your anxiety all over the place, go do it somewhere else.
Re: Re: Re:4
i guess i was right…reality is depressing and depression is reality.
Re: Re: Re:5
I can’t tell if you’re a concern troll or someone who really needs a person in real life they can find comfort with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
i need comfort…and hope…and facts…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Fact: there was no real enthusiasm for Kamala.
It was all fake.
Her campaign was a phantasm created by the lib ‘reality-making’ apparatus.
She was the first AI presidential candidate.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yes! Of course! The party whose members were generally for the idea of reining in AI would obviously use an AI presidential candidate and run on nothing but AI-generated lies!
…Wait a minute-
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re not right—you’re looking for someone upon whom you can dump all your anxiety and trauma to get easy-breezy answers for life in return. But guess what? Life isn’t easy, and it won’t get any easier.
Do you want to lie down and die? You can go do that, then. But if you want to live? Remember these five words: “I didn’t hear no bell.” Every time life knocks you down, you get the fuck back up and tell it those five words. Every time anxiety and depression tell you to stay down, you spit in its face and tell it those five words. So long as you can find the will to keep going, all you have to do is stand up, spit the blood out of your mouth, and say “I didn’t hear no bell”.
We’re not able to snap our fingers and make the world more just. We’re also not able to cure you of your fear and rob you of your misery. We’re the same kind of meatbags as you, and in many ways, we’re just as afraid as you are of the future. But whining about how unfair and hard life is, and how you’re scared to death, and otherwise trying to find a pity party where you can be the center of attention and have everyone assure you that everything will be okay? That ain’t gonna get you shit. When you’re finally ready to stop being a whiny asshole who spams this site as an alternative to finding a therapist, all you have to do is stare down the horrors of life and say five simple words:
I didn’t hear no bell.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
How Though?!
If It’s A L For Free Speech Then It Means Censorship Wins.
How Can We Even Keep Fighting From There?!
Re:
Three things.
Hope? Yeah, I remember hope…
Trump and porn
I get that this is part of Project 2025, but on the other hand, Trump personally is obviously a consumer of porn, not to mention a molester of porn stars. So I question what kind of support he’d give to this idea. Then again, he did (in his first term — maybe no more?) go along with the anti-abortion agenda, despite reportedly having paid for several himself.
Re:
I have zero faith that trump will pushback against a porn ban this time. Maybe elon would talk him out of it but I don’t trust elon and that’s assuming elon has more influence over trump than vance or the heritage foundation.
Re: Re:
We’ll have to see. Nothing is predictable anymore.
Re:
All Trump did re abortion was appoint justices who would likely overturn Roe (and probably only did that much because that’s the bare minimum needed to get a Republican nomination.) He’s said he’s not interested in a national abortion ban and that states should decide. He’s also proposed making insurance companies cover IVF, which hardline antiabortion folks oppose (it typically results in a LOT of destroyed embryos.)
I am guessing, like you, that Trump similarly isn’t really all that interested in banning porn. There are Republicans who would, but he’s not one of them. His issues mostly seem to be anti-immigrant and anti-China.
He’s also no friend to the First Amendment, of course. But it would be a mistake to assume he’s just going to go along with everything his supporters might want regardless of what he himself thinks.
Re: Re:
He may not be interested. The rest of the GOP is. And even if he won’t explicitly ban abortion, he and the GOP may still find some way to do it without calling it an abortion ban—like, say, setting a national six-week limit and calling it a “sensible time limit regulation” or some shit like that.
He only proposed that to win over women voters. I can all but guarantee that he’ll forget all about that once he enters office. He’ll probably even deny saying “I am the father of IVF”.
Doesn’t really matter if he isn’t. The GOP is. And given how long they fought to bring down Roe v. Wade, if Trump won’t ban porn, the GOP will ride out Trump’s second term and wait until someone more willing to play ball gets into the White House.
It would be a mistake to assume he won’t. And again: If he won’t, the GOP can wait until someone who will follow their plan comes into power. Republicans already play the long game in politics—what would waiting four years to get a more competent fascist into the White House really matter in the grand scheme of things?
Re: Re: Re: Literal toddlers are harder to manipulate than him
Personally I find banking on the idea that on this one thing not a single person in the party will find a way to manipulate convicted felon Trump into supporting an abortion ban now that he doesn’t have to worry about currying favor with women probably not the safest assumption.
If they think they can get away with passing a nationwide ban or a law that has the same effect they will, and if the only thing that stands between the GOP and that goal is convicted felon Trump then that’s not even a speedbump.
Re: Re: Re:2
Like I mentioned, they’re already planning this. Even if Trump actually won’t pass a national ban per se, he’ll probably be amenable to a set “reasonable limits” on abortion nationwide—which would effectively cancel out all the attempts to protect abortions in “blue” states. And he still has a mifepristone ban via the Comstock Act in his back pocket, too.
Laws are for little people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You need to be more scared of Vance than Trump
Trumps Agenda 47 does not mention outlawing porn or censoring the Net but Vance does fully embrace Project 2025
and he could become President
The FBI just arrested someone for yet another Iranian plot to kill Trump
Ever since we took out that Iranian general in 2020, Iran has had an $80 million dollar bounty on Trump’s head and even a warrant for his arrest
With his money, Trump could hire hackers to break into Iran’s computer networks and erase those warrants
Like anywhere else in the world, Iran has their arrest warrants on computers, which can be hacked.
Once those warrants were erased out of Iran’s law enforcement computer networks, that would be the end of it. Iran’s law enforcement computer networks, like any other network can be hacked, so he could, and should, hire some hackers to break into their computers and erase them, so that that warrant is not there anymore. Once erased, that will be the end of it.
Short of going to war with Iran, he will have to do that.
A President Vance is too scary to think about, so if there are any hackers to speak Farsi out there, they shoukld try to break into law enforcement computer networks in Iran and cancel that $80 million dollar bounty on Trump’s head.
Once those warrants are erased, that will be the end of it.
Re:
I understand the Vance part but everything else?
Dude, you good in there?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Those warrants from Iran must be erased. With Iran’s 80 million dollar warrant on Trump, and that Vance would become President is Trump were kill or captured, that needs to be erased from Iran’s computer networks.
A President Vance scares the hell out of me, so, somehow, some way, erasing that bounty and warrant out of Iran’s computer networks is something that must be done. Once erased, that will be the end of it.
All any hacker has to do it use Tor or VPN so they cannot be traced.
Tor and VPN both COMBINED makes you untraceable. I do that when I post here because I have no doubt some of my posts ere have attracted the the attention of the Feds, so I make myself untraceable.
Re: Re: Re:
..That was not an invitation for you to continue.
Re: Re: Re:
You are insane.
Re: Great. Now I'm MORE Paranoid.
Thanks Alot Asshole…
Re: Re:
He’s crazy, don’t bother.
Re: Re: Re:
do what happened recently? well…
Another thing they better be careful is that any attempt at a new CDA could results in the Dems winning big in 2028
The reason Clinton not only won big in 1996 and made a few red states blue can be pretty much the so called “Contract With The American Family”
If they try that the Dems will win, in 2028, the biggest electoral victory since LBJ in 1964
In a Harris vs. Vance election in 2028, I see Kamala wiping up the floor with JD Vance, with Kamala getting 424 electoral votes if they try any new CDA.
Somethbing the GOP needs to think about.
Re:
Unsure if they’d run Kamala again. I don’t think she’s a bad candidate, but I’m not sure if it’s gonna be very persuasive to run with her twice in a row like this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“Remarkable” …are we sure that Musk didn’t use space lasers to rig voting machines to pump out votes for Trump?
Bro, wake up.
Stop the denial, bros. Porn bans will be hard and absolute. Your use and possession can and will be used against you. What to go to jail?If you think you are the exception, you are dead wrong. Get a reality check. You voted for this if you voted for T!@#$. Now live with the consequences. “Your ass, HIS choice.”
https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/7/24315520/kids-online-safety-act-kosa-x-update-johnson-scalise
all hope is lost…