>>18454738 (lb)
>I find it distasteful.
You're obviously not a wrastlin' fan.
The vaccinated will be transformed alien/mutant hybrid nephilim with inorganic dew claws and phallus-shaped vaginas that prey on the elderly's social security and small business PPP checks.
2 More Weeks, tops.
Outside of illegal content, nothing should be censored for adults at all. Categorized? Perhaps. I'm all about categorization and limiting what minors can access. That should be common sense. But censorship and throttling? No.
Someone should remind conservatives this means content they don't like is protected speech, too.
Porn is protected free speech, and saying otherwise is a complete dismissal of many court cases that have decided on the contrary to your post. There's a line between what it categorized as "pornographic" and "obscene" and that line is open to interpretation depending on which judge's desk the case ends up on.
Is sex obscene? No.
Is filming sex obscene? No.
Is depicting sex in a movie obscene? No.
When does the sex depicted in a movie traverse from "pornographic" to "obscene"? Well, that depends on the judge.
Categorize it. Put it in the "xxx" domain, and have devices configured by default to restrict access to it.
https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornography-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-and-pornography
>human trafficking for sex
There's a difference between "sex work" and "trafficking". And I agree, when the ones that are using leverage to coerce people into doing sex acts either privately or on screen are prosecuted, the sheer volume of pornography production will be reduced to a small fraction of what it is now - as it should be.
Pretty awesome stuff if you think about it. Pretty awesome stuff. Listen to Jeff Sessions arguments on the UN "renovation" project around 17:20. Boss start at 1:35:30.