Will writing and publishing erotica become illegal in your state?

[MrPixel]

Will literotica.com, etc., be blocked by your state government? That's what the burgeoning theocracy wants.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/republican-anti-sex-legislation-state-level

Louisiana already "requires" porn sites to have user IDs on file. Gay and trans literature is illegal in schools in Florida, and libraries are already self-censoring out of fear of prosecution.

It appears that everything is on the table now. Good luck.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's worrisome, but I think the fears are somewhat overstated. None of the proposed laws described in that article concern Literotica directly. Written erotic literature enjoys Constitutional free speech protection that pornographic images do not. There are plenty of state legislators who don't understand the First Amendment, but the courts for the most part do, and as law professor Eugene Volokh is quoted in the article you cite, "I don't think such laws for the Internet are constitutional." He's probably right.

Erotic content has ALWAYS been under assault. It's nothing new. Conservatives and feminists were trying to ban porn in the 80s. They failed, spectacularly. Nobody knows for sure what will happen, but the likelihood is they will fail again.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Will literotica.com, etc., be blocked by your state government? That's what the burgeoning theocracy wants.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/republican-anti-sex-legislation-state-level

Louisiana already "requires" porn sites to have user IDs on file. Gay and trans literature is illegal in schools in Florida, and libraries are already self-censoring out of fear of prosecution.

It appears that everything is on the table now. Good luck.

Harmful to Minors laws have been around for a long, long time. Giving minors access to sexualized materials is the general offense, even before 1968 when the Supreme Court ruled that New York could prosecute a shop owner for selling nude magazines to a sixteen-year-old boy.

Nothing is really changing, except the rhetoric trying to normalize SOME sexualized materials by redefining what that is.

When people try targeting kids, LOOK OUT! There are protective parents out there who (often rightfully) stay involved in their kids' lives, and care about whether their kids are exposed to porn sites.

 

[MrPixel]

Erotic content has ALWAYS been under assault. It's nothing new. Conservatives and feminists were trying to ban porn in the 80s. They failed, spectacularly. Nobody knows for sure what will happen, but the likelihood is they will fail again.

I hope so. But I have to wonder this time around who is going to advocate for porn and erotica. It takes somebody with the resources - money, media know-how - who's both intelligent and shameless. That used to be Larry Flynt, who was put in a wheelchair by a hyper-religious nutcase in 1978. Given the scary aggression from the right these days and the constant media shaming from "me too"-type interests, the personal stakes of pushing against the bluenoses are higher than they ever were.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

This is an actual beachwear store along the boardwalk in Myrtle Beach, SC. It is located directly across from a city provided photo opportunity for kids to get their pictures taken with the beach in the background.

If the state wants to restrict the access of minors to sexually oriented material, maybe they should start at the street level. I'm sure that a few grandparents would appreciate not having to explain, "Grandma, what's a MILF?" when they take their grand kids to the beach.

 

[Lifestyle66]

This is an actual beachwear store along the boardwalk in Myrtle Beach, SC. It is located directly across from a city provided photo opportunity for kids to get their pictures taken with the beach in the background.

If the state wants to restrict the access of minors to sexually oriented material, maybe they should start at the street level. I'm sure that a few grandparents would appreciate not having to explain, "Grandma, what's a MILF?" when they take their grand kids to the beach.

True.

But parents and grandparents can send a message at street level by avoiding such venues and streets, and hurting them with lost revenues. Those stores exist because there are still plenty of others who will spend money there. I guess that's what "freedom" means.

The parents trying to protect their kids can avoid such stores, but don't have options to avoid the exposure when the state FORCES the parent to send their kids to school. (And don't even try arguing about private schools or home-schooling options, which MOST parents can't do or afford). So, some parents will probably fight to ensure their kids at school aren't handed a Playboy magazine in the library.

 

[ronde]

I'm a pretty conservative guy who also writes erotica and I don't find both to be mutually exclusive. The reason is I am an ardent defender of free speech for the same reasons the First Amendment was written in the first place. It was written to constrain the legal actions the US Constitution could grant to the Federal Government. The founders were attempting to write a document that would make the absolute rule of the new government they had experienced as an English colony. Thus, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom to speak out for or against anything, freedom of the press to publish what they will, and freedom to assemble and protest.

Where this gets sticky is in the definition of "speech" and this is where any legislation to ban erotic content in any media will ultimately fail in the courts. What constitutes erotic content will vary from person to person and with time so it is especially difficult to precisely define. My grandmother used to cut the women's underwear sections out of the Sears catalogue because she considered them to be too erotic. It used to be illegal to send condoms through the US Mail much less anything depicting anything involving sex. No matter what the definition, there would always be some group of people who are still offended by the "legal" speech. What the courts would likely decide is if some film or book offends you, there is no law that says you have to view or read it. An example is the US Supreme Court decision relative to the burning of the American Flag. I am greatly offended by that action as are most veterans, yet the US Supreme Court ruled that such a thing is free speech. I don't have to like it. My options are to not watch people burning the American Flag and to protest that conduct when they do.

Relative to the exposure of children to alternative lifestyles in public schools, I believe the responsibility of public schools is to teach the knowledge children will need to understand how to advance themselves through life to the best of their ability. Teaching about those alternative lifestyles to all children in public schools at the expense of life skills is a misuse of public funds and probably confusing to the majority of children. Most kids past the age of puberty already know their own inclinations and don't need to be taught.

 

[R. Richard]

I publish in Smashwords and Amazon. They take care of where my stories are sold.

 

[Lifestyle66]

This thread needs to be moved to politics, since it obviously has nothing to do with writing.

 

[oneagainst]

In Texas the only things that are protected are your right to shoot your neighbors and your right to inflict your “Christian” bullshit on everyone else. It’s like Afghanistan or Iran.

It's an issue in a lot of countries, not just Texas. I went down a rabbit hole with some local proposed legislation and was motivated enough to write about it. Just finished editing for Only Consenting Adults, due out soon - exploring the impact if such legislation became law. It's Lit with a subtext, but then again, if we don't write about it, who will?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Harmful to Minors laws have been around for a long, long time. Giving minors access to sexualized materials is the general offense, even before 1968 when the Supreme Court ruled that New York could prosecute a shop owner for selling nude magazines to a sixteen-year-old boy.

Nothing is really changing, except the rhetoric trying to normalize SOME sexualized materials by redefining what that is.

The trick there is to reframe anything one doesn't like as "sexualised". The current panic about drag is an example - cross-dressing has been commonplace in theater for centuries, but some of the currently proposed bills would class a Shakespeare performance as adult activity that needs to be segregated from children in the same way massage parlours are.

(And anything that acknowledges the existence of queer people is of course "sexualised".)

When people try targeting kids, LOOK OUT!

When people are so gullible that they can be whipped up into murderous frenzy by agitators telling them "they're targeting your kids", LOOK OUT!

There are protective parents out there who (often rightfully) stay involved in their kids' lives, and care about whether their kids are exposed to porn sites.

There are indeed. I was one of them. (Past tense only because the kid is long since grown up.) But the key there is "stay involved in their kids' lives". If you're doing this, you don't need the government to "help" with bullshit like ID requirements for porn sites. And if you're not putting in the effort as a parent then those laws aren't actually going to protect your kid. That's not really what they're for.

The parents trying to protect their kids can avoid such stores, but don't have options to avoid the exposure when the state FORCES the parent to send their kids to school. (And don't even try arguing about private schools or home-schooling options, which MOST parents can't do or afford). So, some parents will probably fight to ensure their kids at school aren't handed a Playboy magazine in the library.

Has there actually been a case of a school library providing kids with Playboy, or is this one of those "people making up stuff to be mad about" things?

 

[Smuttyandfun]

The trick there is to reframe anything one doesn't like as "sexualised". The current panic about drag is an example - cross-dressing has been commonplace in theater for centuries, but some of the currently proposed bills would class a Shakespeare performance as adult activity that needs to be segregated from children in the same way massage parlours are.

(And anything that acknowledges the existence of queer people is of course "sexualised".)



When people are so gullible that they can be whipped up into murderous frenzy by agitators telling them "they're targeting your kids", LOOK OUT!



There are indeed. I was one of them. (Past tense only because the kid is long since grown up.) But the key there is "stay involved in their kids' lives". If you're doing this, you don't need the government to "help" with bullshit like ID requirements for porn sites. And if you're not putting in the effort as a parent then those laws aren't actually going to protect your kid. That's not really what they're for.



Has there actually been a case of a school library providing kids with Playboy, or is this one of those "people making up stuff to be mad about" things?

Like that story being floated about litter boxes in classrooms, for kids who are furries. Total BS, but some people will believe whatever nonsense is being peddled.

 

[alohadave]

Has there actually been a case of a school library providing kids with Playboy, or is this one of those "people making up stuff to be mad about" things?

The closest thing my high school had was the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, but we only got that because the library had a subscription to the magazine. The librarian kept it behind the desk and you had to ask to read it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Like that story being floated about litter boxes in classrooms, for kids who are furries. Total BS, but some people believe whatever nonsense is being peddled.

Sad to say that one made it down under and got repeated by some of the usual charlatans here :-/

I did find this though, from 2005 (and not a school library):

https://archive.triblive.com/news/playboy-to-stay-in-suburban-library/

Playboy magazine will remain available at the public library in Oak Lawn, Ill., despite efforts to ban the adult men's magazine to protect children.

"I was ticked off that some guy might be looking at Playboy when my kids are there," Mark Decker, who asked Playboy be removed from the library, told Thursday's Chicago Tribune.

The father of three said the photographs of undressed women in the publication might provoke child molesters.

Playboy was requested 44 times in 2004. Library officials in the southwest Chicago suburb require proof of age to view the magazine, which is stored in a secure area on the second floor and does not share open shelf space with magazines like Time or Newsweek.

Nice example of how that "protect the children!!!!!" framing gets used as a smokescreen for attacks against anybody being able to access "adult" material. You have to read to the fourth paragraph to find that the material never was accessible to kids!

 

[alohadave]

Like that story being floated about litter boxes in classrooms, for kids who are furries. Total BS, but some people will believe whatever nonsense is being peddled.

It's funny how a single story like that warps into a nationwide panic.

Like the kids eating the Tide Pods things. AFICT, it was only a handful of kids that did it, but it was supposedly something that kids across the country were doing.

 

[Lifestyle66]

The trick there is to reframe anything one doesn't like as "sexualised". The current panic about drag is an example - cross-dressing has been commonplace in theater for centuries, but some of the currently proposed bills would class a Shakespeare performance as adult activity that needs to be segregated from children in the same way massage parlours are.

(And anything that acknowledges the existence of queer people is of course "sexualised".)



When people are so gullible that they can be whipped up into murderous frenzy by agitators telling them "they're targeting your kids", LOOK OUT!



There are indeed. I was one of them. (Past tense only because the kid is long since grown up.) But the key there is "stay involved in their kids' lives". If you're doing this, you don't need the government to "help" with bullshit like ID requirements for porn sites. And if you're not putting in the effort as a parent then those laws aren't actually going to protect your kid. That's not really what they're for.



Has there actually been a case of a school library providing kids with Playboy, or is this one of those "people making up stuff to be mad about" things?

I think you're obfuscating.

The trick there is to reframe anything one doesn't like as "sexualised". The current panic about drag is an example - cross-dressing has been commonplace in theater for centuries, but some of the currently proposed bills would class a Shakespeare performance as adult activity that needs to be segregated from children in the same way massage parlours are.

(And anything that acknowledges the existence of queer people is of course "sexualised".)



When people are so gullible that they can be whipped up into murderous frenzy by agitators telling them "they're targeting your kids", LOOK OUT!



There are indeed. I was one of them. (Past tense only because the kid is long since grown up.) But the key there is "stay involved in their kids' lives". If you're doing this, you don't need the government to "help" with bullshit like ID requirements for porn sites. And if you're not putting in the effort as a parent then those laws aren't actually going to protect your kid. That's not really what they're for.



Has there actually been a case of a school library providing kids with Playboy, or is this one of those "people making up stuff to be mad about" things?

When my (first) wife and I decided to have kids, we were committing our jobs and family resources for the next 18 years to raise each child. We committed to raising each one to our standards and family values.

Too many kids are abandoned, or families dis-owning them when those kids turn out "bad", or the parents don't give a shit about them.

SO ... when anyone tries to take kids from their families and instruct the kids in values contrary to the caring parents' wishes, those takers are looking for a fight. EIGHTEEN YEARS of families investing in raising a family clone is what some young, new, teachers are choosing to start a fight.

As for my reference to "Playboy", try not to be too dense. It's a reference to providing sexualized material to minors.

Are you one of those looking for a fight? Are you one of those who are done with your kids and looking to "better educate" the kids of others? Or are you one of those "agitators" whipping people up by telling them "they're deleting Black history"?

As I said earlier (to the Admins), this thread has NOTHING to do with writing, and belongs in Politics.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I think you're obfuscating.

When my (first) wife and I decided to have kids, we were committing our jobs and family resources for the next 18 years to raise each child. We committed to raising each one to our standards and family values.

Too many kids are abandoned, or families dis-owning them when those kids turn out "bad", or the parents don't give a shit about them.

SO ... when anyone tries to take kids from their families and instruct the kids in values contrary to the caring parents' wishes, those takers are looking for a fight. EIGHTEEN YEARS of families investing in raising a family clone is what some young, new, teachers are choosing to start a fight.

As for my reference to "Playboy", try not to be too dense. It's a reference to providing sexualized material to minors.

Are you one of those looking for a fight? Are you one of those who are done with your kids and looking to "better educate" the kids of others? Or are you one of those "agitators" whipping people up by telling them "they're deleting Black history"?

As I said earlier (to the Admins), this thread has NOTHING to do with writing, and belongs in Politics.

It seems like you were fine with posting in it here until you disagreed with some of the other posts in it.

 

[Lifestyle66]

It seems like you were fine with posting in it here until you disagreed with some of the other posts in it.

No. I flagged this to the Admins as politics much earlier. But if they're going to leave it here, so be it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm going to stay out of the political back and forth, although it's tempting. I'll just say: I'm not worried about this. Whatever is going in with schools, or relating to visual pornography, is not likely to apply to a story site like Literotica.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Pure text hasn't been a problem in the UK since the 60s and the embarrassment to the Establishment of the Lady Chatterley trial. (the QC acting for the Govt asked 'is this a book you would like your wives or servants to read?' to a mixed-sex jury totally lacking in servants...).

There are regular attempts to clamp down on 'imagery' especially 'violent porn', which generally go away after it's explained to the latest Minister that regulating the Internet isn't possible, not to mention that trying to ban images just because someone's wanked over them would be creating thoughtcrime.

School boards aren't elected, which helps them focus on education rather than populism. I can't imagine a public library paying for Playboy simply because of the outcry over spending 'taxpayer's money' on it, though I'm fairly certain my college library had it for a while. It wasn't age-restricted in shops, but the main newsagent chain did stop selling porn round 2000. Except for the top-selling national newspaper which still had topless girls (age 16-17...) on Page Three for a few more years - again, no age restriction.

This is relevant to the AH because I'm writing a story for the Crime & Punishment challenge about the attempts to criminalise images where the powers that be think no-one could be enjoying their production (think about the Spanner case, or any image of someone's backside post-scene) and a potential court scene where this might have to be disproven. Not sure how realistic or comedic it might get, but with examples like tattooing being legal but the same action without ink hypothetically being criminal, the farce writes itself.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Pure text hasn't been a problem in the UK since the 60s and the embarrassment to the Establishment of the Lady Chatterley trial. (the QC acting for the Govt asked 'is this a book you would like your wives or servants to read?' to a mixed-sex jury totally lacking in servants...).

There are regular attempts to clamp down on 'imagery' especially 'violent porn', which generally go away after it's explained to the latest Minister that regulating the Internet isn't possible, not to mention that trying to ban images just because someone's wanked over them would be creating thoughtcrime.

School boards aren't elected, which helps them focus on education rather than populism. I can't imagine a public library paying for Playboy simply because of the outcry over spending 'taxpayer's money' on it, though I'm fairly certain my college library had it for a while. It wasn't age-restricted in shops, but the main newsagent chain did stop selling porn round 2000. Except for the top-selling national newspaper which still had topless girls (age 16-17...) on Page Three for a few more years - again, no age restriction.

This is relevant to the AH because I'm writing a story for the Crime & Punishment challenge about the attempts to criminalise images where the powers that be think no-one could be enjoying their production (think about the Spanner case, or any image of someone's backside post-scene) and a potential court scene where this might have to be disproven. Not sure how realistic or comedic it might get, but with examples like tattooing being legal but the same action without ink hypothetically being criminal, the farce writes itself.

My reference to "Playboy" was a simile to "sexualized material", which was clearly banned in U.S. public schools.

You are correct in that school boards are elected and should focus on education rather than populism.

My whole point in this thread is that it's those who are attempting to override the goals of caring parents. Parents who SHOULD care about the education system transforming their minor kids into a generic productive adult, are being challenged by those usurpers looking for a fight.

WHO is looking for that fight to sexually influence minors?

 

[yukonnights]

Watch a show or two on Hulu or some other streaming service. There's ample nudity, exposed butts, side shots of breasts that show it all but the nipples. Compare that to an erotic story on Lit and this place is not even on the radar. IMO, the freedom of speech standards in the USA would block any legal argument for fictional stories.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think you're obfuscating.

Let me get this straight: you made up a story about schools handing out Playboy to kids, and I'm the one "obfuscating"???

When my (first) wife and I decided to have kids, we were committing our jobs and family resources for the next 18 years to raise each child. We committed to raising each one to our standards and family values.

Too many kids are abandoned, or families dis-owning them when those kids turn out "bad", or the parents don't give a shit about them.

Indeed. My partner had a friend who realised around age 13 that he was gay. When he talked to his father about it, the father's response was: "You know where the shotgun is."

Many, many kids get let down by their families in one way or another, and that's exactly why we've decided as a society that parental authority shouldn't be absolute and that children sometimes need to learn about things that their parents might not agree with. Drawing that line is complicated and it sometimes goes wrong but the alternative is worse.

SO ... when anyone tries to take kids from their families and instruct the kids in values contrary to the caring parents' wishes, those takers are looking for a fight.

People can be full of care and love and good wishes and still be shitty parents, if they don't understand that children are human beings with rights of their own and that sometimes those rights might conflict with the parent's notions.

EIGHTEEN YEARS of families investing in raising a family clone is what some young, new, teachers are choosing to start a fight.

I don't understand this sentence.

As for my reference to "Playboy", try not to be too dense. It's a reference to providing sexualized material to minors.

Ah, the old "this is a real problem! So real that I had to make up a fake story about it to illustrate how real it is!" gambit.

If it's a real problem that requires government intervention (the thing that you're so much against when it happens to you), then surely there should be persuasive real-life examples without having to make things up.

Are you one of those looking for a fight? Are you one of those who are done with your kids and looking to "better educate" the kids of others? Or are you one of those "agitators" whipping people up by telling them "they're deleting Black history"?

I hadn't mentioned race, but that comment sure tells me a lot about you.

 

[Bramblethorn]

WHO is looking for that fight to sexually influence minors?

IME nobody fights harder to influence a minor's sexuality than a conservative parent who's afraid their kid might be queer.

 

[MelissaBaby]

No. I flagged this to the Admins as politics much earlier. But if they're going to leave it here, so be it.

It’s pretty ironic isn’t it? Asking the admins to remove a thread about censorship?