“Protected sexual speech” is such a bizarre phrase. Nobody who wrote the first amendment envisioned that. How can you say the First Amendment prohibits a democratically elected legislature from banning something that was never envisioned as being protected by the First Amendment by the people who wrote it? It makes no sense. Surely the views of either the writers of the first amendment of the past, or the democratically elected legislature in the present, must prevail.
sirspacey 4 hours ago [-]
because that pretty much is the state of any kind of speach it could apply to. either we operate from it as a first principle/“sacred text” or its scope shrinks as modern life loses any literal comparison to life in the late 1700s
rayiner 3 hours ago [-]
That doesn’t make any sense. To the extent that “modern life” diverges from the late 1700s, then you don’t need the First Amendment. Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.
staticman2 3 hours ago [-]
What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.
rayiner 2 hours ago [-]
Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?
throwaway98327 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
metalcrow 6 hours ago [-]
This is a good point. A lot of people don't realize online pornography is arguably federally illegal, just totally unenforced.
testing22321 6 hours ago [-]
Freedom often isn’t.
greatgib 3 hours ago [-]
Crazy how something legal and that should stay legal is easily restricted to use through big company own initiative to limit it and evil politicians bending innocuous laws and regulation bodies to block legal content that they don't like.
These laws are out of touch with the quality of local AI porn generators.
gamblor956 7 hours ago [-]
According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states, so this could raise a lot of tax revenue. Billions, based on the amount of this material that Utahans consume on an annual basis.
throwaw3y 2 hours ago [-]
> According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states
This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).
PearlRiver 3 hours ago [-]
So why not put normal sales tax on it like with everything else? I do not see the difference between taxing Netflix or Only Fans.
8 hours ago [-]
8 hours ago [-]
burnt-resistor 3 hours ago [-]
Technofascist MAGA, evangelical Christofascists, and illiberal limousine neoliberals all agree in outlawing rights, and removing freedoms and privacy from individuals. They've lost the plot on the point of a free country while they try to impose their moral conformity on everyone else.
This is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).