By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US court rules child porn laws enforcement and penalties as unconstitutional, leaving them unenforceable

CaptainExplosion said:
Paatar said:

I don’t like the man, but stop blaming him for things he had nothing to do with. 

It's still his government, so even if not directly, it's his fault too.

Not to mention his changes to the EPA would result in AN EXTRA 1400 PREMATURE DEATHS BY 2030 BECAUSE HE'S GIVING MORE POWER TO THE COAL INDUSTRY.

Still in disbelief that America elected such a sorry excuse for a human being.

Doesn't the US has a seperation of power? So, the President shouldn't have power over the judgment system, at all.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Asus PG27UQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 @120 Hz GSYNC HDR| HTC Vive Pro :3

Reached PC master race level.

Around the Network

Man I gotta report your post, it's ridiculous.



contestgamer said:
Man I gotta report your post, it's ridiculous.

Well excuse me for demanding the president be held accountable.



Ka-pi96 said:
pokoko said:
Yeah, that source means that I'm going to trust this about as much as an article from Infowars.

"Gail Dines is affiliated with Culture Reframed, and is a feminist activist who writes and lectures about the harms of porn."

I looked at the article and it isn't as bad as the sensationalist title would suggest. The only thing that has actually changed is that porn producers no longer have to record the ages of all their performers and share that information with the authorities whenever they want it as that was deemed to be unconstitutional.

Making porn featuring underage people is still fully illegal, nothing has changed there. It just seems like the burden of proof now lies with the authorities. It sounds like now if they want to prosecute somebody for producing porn with underage people it's their job to prove they were underage, not the porn company's job to prove they weren't.

Strictly speaking, it is worse as it could lead to some dodgy stuff going on with less obstacles now in place to prevent porn companies using underage actors, but it's certainly nowhere near as bad as the title is making it out to be.

Yeah, it looks like the goal of the porn industry is to protect themselves from shady "subcontractors".  Porn is becoming kind of like gaming, where the big distributors are publishing content from tons of small production "studios" and they want to shield themselves from liability.  I can understand that--why would you want to be responsible for someone else's oversight?  Still, that will probably mean more disreputable people with camcorders will be neglecting to check an actor's age or ignoring it all together.  I can see both sides of the argument.  In the end, though, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.  It's not a judge's right to legislate.

My original post was more about the source than the content.  It's from an author that's CEO of an anti-porn organization and, much worse, writes for Huffington.  There is no way I'm going to take that at face value.



pokoko said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I looked at the article and it isn't as bad as the sensationalist title would suggest. The only thing that has actually changed is that porn producers no longer have to record the ages of all their performers and share that information with the authorities whenever they want it as that was deemed to be unconstitutional.

Making porn featuring underage people is still fully illegal, nothing has changed there. It just seems like the burden of proof now lies with the authorities. It sounds like now if they want to prosecute somebody for producing porn with underage people it's their job to prove they were underage, not the porn company's job to prove they weren't.

Strictly speaking, it is worse as it could lead to some dodgy stuff going on with less obstacles now in place to prevent porn companies using underage actors, but it's certainly nowhere near as bad as the title is making it out to be.

Yeah, it looks like the goal of the porn industry is to protect themselves from shady "subcontractors".  Porn is becoming kind of like gaming, where the big distributors are publishing content from tons of small production "studios" and they want to shield themselves from liability.  I can understand that--why would you want to be responsible for someone else's oversight?  Still, that will probably mean more disreputable people with camcorders will be neglecting to check an actor's age or ignoring it all together.  I can see both sides of the argument.  In the end, though, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.  It's not a judge's right to legislate.

My original post was more about the source than the content.  It's from an author that's CEO of an anti-porn organization and, much worse, writes for Huffington.  There is no way I'm going to take that at face value.

What's so bad about the Huffington Post?



Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:
pokoko said:

Yeah, it looks like the goal of the porn industry is to protect themselves from shady "subcontractors".  Porn is becoming kind of like gaming, where the big distributors are publishing content from tons of small production "studios" and they want to shield themselves from liability.  I can understand that--why would you want to be responsible for someone else's oversight?  Still, that will probably mean more disreputable people with camcorders will be neglecting to check an actor's age or ignoring it all together.  I can see both sides of the argument.  In the end, though, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.  It's not a judge's right to legislate.

My original post was more about the source than the content.  It's from an author that's CEO of an anti-porn organization and, much worse, writes for Huffington.  There is no way I'm going to take that at face value.

What's so bad about the Huffington Post?

Dude it's a far left propaganda outlet.



contestgamer said:
CaptainExplosion said:

What's so bad about the Huffington Post?

Dude it's a far left propaganda outlet.

Still better than Fox News, which is pretty much going to make the court's ruling look good if at all possible. They'd even call child porn providers "pretty good people".



Never said fox new is good. We're not talking about FN though, but of HP, which is also terrible.



Yeah, this one is already headed South. Gonna lock it now before things get any worse.



                                                                                                             

CaptainExplosion said:

What's so bad about the Huffington Post?

If you just want someone to form your opinions for you, nothing.  If you care about unbiased reporting, then it's the same as any of the other propaganda platforms out there.  

Peh said:

Doesn't the US has a seperation of power? So, the President shouldn't have power over the judgment system, at all.

Ironically, the Judicial branch has been a massive thorn in Trump's side.  He can't directly overrule the court system in most cases.  The law itself would have to be changed, which would require the support of Congress.  It certainly isn't "his government".

That being said, Trump does have the opportunity to pick another Supreme Court Justice, which should be a boost to conservative legislature down the line.