SC Prude Wants To Block Sites Like This From Homes

[jaF0]

Bill aimed at preventing online porn in South Carolina
WSOC Charlotte - ‎15 hours ago‎


COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - People buying computers in South Carolina would be limited in their access to porn online under newly proposed legislation. A bill pre-filed this month by state Rep. Bill Chumley would require sellers to install digital blocking ...


Wonder what Chumpley's ID is here.

 

[domroger]

Answer to that is simple ,buy your computer from out of state .

 

[BotanyBoy]

If SC wants to do that then they should.

 

[srgreene]

Literotica is certainly a "soft porn" site, and I frankly doubt it does anyone appreciable harm. I would not say that about some porn sites. Do impressionable teens need to see scenes of rape, scatological sex, child abuse or even "simply" abusive sex? Is that healthy for the next generation? I think not.

And don't bother trying to make a First Amendment argument here. While I am not a legal scholar, I am confident that scenes of just plain P-in-P sex was not what the founders of the USA had in mind when they restricted the federal government from censoring free speech, let alone the kind of abuse of women that abounds on the Internet.

I, for one, want to see the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution respected, and not have the intent of those people changed by contemporary standards. If we want to legalize hard core porn, let Congress propose an amendment, and let the states ratify it. (but leave Literotica alone, lol).

 

[sr71plt]

Literotica is blocked in a lot of hotels and cafes. No reason why SC couldn't do it, if they managed to get that passed and didn't mind getting no tax revenues because, as noted earlier, everyone will just then buy their computers out of state.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Literotica is certainly a "soft porn" site, and I frankly doubt it does anyone appreciable harm. I would not say that about some porn sites. Do impressionable teens need to see scenes of rape, scatological sex, child abuse or even "simply" abusive sex? Is that healthy for the next generation? I think not.

And don't bother trying to make a First Amendment argument here. While I am not a legal scholar, I am confident that scenes of just plain P-in-P sex was not what the founders of the USA had in mind when they restricted the federal government from censoring free speech, let alone the kind of abuse of women that abounds on the Internet.

I, for one, want to see the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution respected, and not have the intent of those people changed by contemporary standards. If we want to legalize hard core porn, let Congress propose an amendment, and let the states ratify it. (but leave Literotica alone, lol).

We don't need a Constitutional amendment to legalize commercial sex you authoritarian control freak communist, it's already legal.

The question is do the states have a right to ban it??

I suppose with enough support they could, to that I say take your fucking commie shit to Russia or China where they regularly shit on freedom in the name of the greater good or morality.

 

[phrodeau]

How is that even a question? It's a clear violation of the First Amendment. Why aren't the conservatives railing against this?

 

[BotanyBoy]

How is that even a question? It's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Not anymore than any other restrictions on free speech.

Or the sex industry at large for that matter.

Why aren't the conservatives railing against this?

Why would they? That's like asking why Democrats aren't railing against gun control.....

 

[jaF0]

Why aren't the conservatives railing against this?

The Conservatives are the ones promoting it, as usual. They're the ones most likely to infringe on the rights of others.

 

[phrodeau]

Ass-backward idiots who think the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 1st.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Conservatives are the ones promoting it, as usual. They're the ones most likely to infringe on the rights of others.

Got anything to support that? Becuase (D)'s fucking LOATHE 1A, 2A, 4A, 10A.....at a bare minimum.

They hate all those rights with a white hot searing passion and regularly attack them.

Ass-backward idiots who think the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 1st.

Not more important, just not less important.

 

[phrodeau]

Not anymore than any other restrictions on free speech.

Or the sex industry at large for that matter.



Why would they? That's like asking why Democrats aren't railing against gun control.....

Democrats are railing for gun control? I haven't heard a thing lately. You must have extra-sensitive ears.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Democrats are railing for gun control?

Nope, never said anything of the sort.

I haven't heard a thing lately. You must have extra-sensitive ears.

No, you're just making shit up.

 

[ReadyMike]

Got anything to support that? Becuase (D)'s fucking LOATHE 1A, 2A, 4A, 10A.....at a bare minimum.

They hate all those rights with a white hot searing passion and regularly attack them.


Rep. Bill Chumley (the bill's sponsor) is a Republican. He's no stooge, he holds seven patents and also sponsored a bill to grant concealed carry permit holder reciprocity in SC.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Rep. Bill Chumley (the bill's sponsor) is a Republican. He's no stooge, he holds seven patents and also sponsored a bill to grant concealed carry permit holder reciprocity in SC.

So?

How does that make conservatives more likely to attack civil rights?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

This is Monotony Boy on a daily basis:

https://www.thatsitguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40-Year-Old-Virgin-Gaming-Chair-520x245.jpg

In case you don't recognize it, it's from the 40 Year Old Virgin

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is Monotony Boy on a daily basis:

https://www.thatsitguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40-Year-Old-Virgin-Gaming-Chair-520x245.jpg

In case you don't recognize it, it's from the 40 Year Old Virgin

Oh look childish shit talk instead of anything approaching an actual argument.

I would say I'm shocked....but I wouldn't want to be a liar.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh look childish shit talk instead of anything approaching an actual argument.

I would say I'm shocked....but I wouldn't want to be a liar.

Suitable for framing.

 

[AvgGuy01]

How is that even a question? It's a clear violation of the First Amendment. Why aren't the conservatives railing against this?

Yep, as soon as liberals rally against conservative free speech on college campuses...

 

[AvgGuy01]

double tap

 

[about_average]

Bill aimed at preventing online porn in South Carolina
WSOC Charlotte - ‎15 hours ago‎

The bill would fine manufacturers that sell a device without the blocking system, but they could opt out by paying $20 per device sold. Buyers could also verify their age and pay $20 to remove the filter.

I'm guessing Chumley also supported the effort to allow victims of gun crimes to sue gun manufactures.

Chumley told the paper (http://******/2gP6dv6) his proposal would block users from accessing websites that facilitate human trafficking and is intended to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials.

"But the children!"

Yep, as soon as liberals rally against conservative free speech on college campuses...

Where have they rallied for a law banning certain speech on college campuses?

 

[Chris_Michael]

South Carolina is obviously just trying to be more considerate to potential Muslim immigrants. You guys are so fucking racist.

That said, build your desktop and buy your laptop from a racist state where Muslims are treated like terrorists.

 

[domroger]

South Carolina is obviously just trying to be more considerate to potential Muslim immigrants. You guys are so fucking racist.

That said, build your desktop and buy your laptop from a racist state where Muslims are treated like terrorists.

Please translate into English .

 

[Boxlicker101]

Literotica is certainly a "soft porn" site, and I frankly doubt it does anyone appreciable harm. I would not say that about some porn sites. Do impressionable teens need to see scenes of rape, scatological sex, child abuse or even "simply" abusive sex? Is that healthy for the next generation? I think not.

And don't bother trying to make a First Amendment argument here. While I am not a legal scholar, I am confident that scenes of just plain P-in-P sex was not what the founders of the USA had in mind when they restricted the federal government from censoring free speech, let alone the kind of abuse of women that abounds on the Internet.

I, for one, want to see the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution respected, and not have the intent of those people changed by contemporary standards. If we want to legalize hard core porn, let Congress propose an amendment, and let the states ratify it. (but leave Literotica alone, lol).

There is a lot of soft-core porn on the site, and a good part of it was written by me. Written words are never hard core. However, there is also hard core, and it is the links available on Page1 of the site. Those are videos of sexual activity involving penetration.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Typical Yanks! Got it arse backwards as usual. Liberals are all about free speech and the rights of the individual. Conservatives are all about controlling what is said and by whom.


Sounds like a $20 hidden tax or surcharge on each new comp bought in SC. I'm sure the capitalist marketers and retailers will lobby to defeat it long before the people have a chance to weigh in.