Total porn ban proposed by Michigan lawmakers

[andy06shake]

Light erotic imagery can be very creative, and I don't find them degrading if they are made in a certain artistic way.

This topic is very grey because there are so many different ways to look at it.

That's very true LightAngel.

And i suppose the "grey area" exists because sexuality itself is so multifaceted.

Part biological drive, part cultural, part personal experience, etc.

What matters really is whether consent and respect are present in the creation and consumption of said pornograph.

When i was a lad, there was no broadband, we found porno magazines in the likes of park bushes or on the school roof.

But the world spun.

Progress can't go backwards, it's just not how our world works. 

Banning pornography would simply drive it underground and into the realms of the likes of snuff films.

Better to keep it out in the open and regulated imho.

[IgnorantGod]

Sex could not be more about human nature.

And pornography is about sex. 

I think you're calling it with it being a "non-starter" but it might be more accurate to say it's counterproductive to education and consent.

[...]

Well, it's not really that I disagree. The first part of my post was to point out it's not human only.

As for consent, I do think it is a 'human thing'. Ducks being an example of a 'forced' reproductive method.

Does that mean we should stop legislating sex or violence? I sincerily don't know the answer to this question, but I wouldn't critic anyone doing so.

Banning a part of the internet is, IMO, a huge enterprise. I also think it would be quite expensive to do so, and to enforce it through time. But if the population is fine with it, well, they do they.

[andy06shake]

I am being serious and genuine.

I have no specific global solutions to present, I am only championing local action. It is, after all, the peaceful evolution of society: awaken individual perception, make local change, affect state policy, allow the nation as a whole to evolve. No shortcuts.

And yes, I am in favour of internal migration and freedom of movement.

Other serious and genuine solutions that are presented elsewhere in the world involve rooftops and gravity. I am not advocating that. Are you saying there is no middle ground?

There is always a middle ground.

But deporting people to states you obviously don't like because of their chosen profession or kinks, certainly doesn't tick the box imho.

Again, regulation is the key where pornography is concerned, not outlawing.

Or at least that's my two cents worth. 

[andy06shake]

Well, it's not really that I disagree. The first part of my post was to point out it's not human only.

As for consent, I do think it is a 'human thing'. Ducks being an example of a 'forced' reproductive method.

Does that mean we should stop legislating sex or violence? I sincerily don't know the answer to this question, but I wouldn't critic anyone doing so.

Banning a part of the internet is, IMO, a huge enterprise. I also think it would be quite expensive to do so, and to enforce it through time. But if the population is fine with it, well, they do they.

Where humans are concerned, sex has to be consensual or else it's rape. 

Banning parts of the internet isn't just costly, it risks ignoring real harm.

All it would achieve is to drive porn underground.

And even more onto the likes of the dark web where the really nefarious stuff resides.

[IgnorantGod]

Where humans are concerned, sex has to be consensual or else it's rape. 

Banning parts of the internet isn't just costly, it risks ignoring real harm.

All it would achieve is to drive porn underground.

And even more onto the likes of the dark web where the really nefarious stuff resides.

I agree, which is why I've stated that sex and/or violence legislations will ultimately rise 'criminal' activity.

And well, there's much to argue in regards to porn contents. Much of a gray zone IMO. There are some 'weird' stuff, to say the least, even on the 'surface' of the internet.

Not only the fact that countries have differents specificities within their legislation on internet content (both creation and consumption within borders).

Internet spanning across the globe, it would be a headache.

[andy06shake]

I agree, which is why I've stated that sex and/or violence legislations will ultimately rise 'criminal' activity.

And well, there's much to argue in regards to porn contents. Much of a gray zone IMO. There are some 'weird' stuff, to say the least, even on the 'surface' of the internet.

Not only the fact that countries have differents specificities within their legislation on internet content (both creation and consumption within borders).

Internet spanning across the globe, it would be a headache.

Oh, a lot of it's horrendous by my own tastes and standards.

But the fact is I'm not the morality police.

And what floats one person's boat tends to sink another's. 

As long as it's consensual and doesn't involve kids or animals, who are we to judge, really? 

Still think it's a safe bet that regulation is the golden ticket as opposed to outright bans.

[UltraBudgie]

deporting people

That is a fun inversion, that allowing people freedom of movement to migrate to places where law and culture are more to their liking is "deporting". I'll have to remember that one.

Well since both of can be impressively uphackleable, I'll back off, to give room for other's comments. Now that we've both shot our wads¹, you can have the last word.


¹ That phrase refers to hand-loaded rifles and cannon, spectators, so get your minds out of the gutter!

[BeyondKnowledge]

We seem to be overlooking a big problem. What exactly is porn? 

Is a nude human porn? If so, there can be no medical textbooks or images on the internet of say breast cancer. 

Is a bikini clad human porn? It shows almost everything as far as skin surface goes.

Are mermaids without shell tops porn? 

Who decides if a drawing is porn or not? Does the difference come down to color of the body area? Many examples of humans can be clothed by simply coloring their bodies to look like something other than skin. 

Also, would you want curious teenagers to be luered in to a back ally speekeasy porn club ran by suspicious adults? Just because it is forbidden is an incentive to have a look for some.

[andy06shake]

That is a fun inversion, that allowing people freedom of movement to migrate to places where law and culture are more to their liking is "deporting". I'll have to remember that one.

Well since both of can be impressively uphackleable, I'll back off, to give room for other's comments. Now that we've both shot our wads¹, you can have the last word.


¹ That phrase refers to hand-loaded rifles and cannon, spectators, so get your minds out of the gutter!

I don't want the last word, you can have that if it's what you desire or makes you feel special, you're the one who seems to have brought it up. 

The impression i got is that you wished to see pornography, and those involved with such, moved to, or become the domain, of California alone, as opposed to the rest of your states.

Coexistence? Why? Let the pornographers move to California. Coexist over there. 

 
Suffice to say, banning pornography simply is not a viable option in the information age in which we exist.

Unless you wish to remove the entire internet(and even then, whats next books?).

If in doubt, UltraBudgie see just how well the "The Online Safety Act" is working on our side of the pond.

Which is to say not really at all.

At least not where the likes of ret@rding people looking at pornographic material are concerned.

[quintessentone]

Is this the church's morality usurping the government's lack of morality (Clash of the Titans; Infighting of Church and State redux)? Sure seems like it to me.

-----

"Michigan GOP Proposes Sweeping "Anticorruption of Public Morals Act" to Ban Pornography and Regulate Gender Identity Content"

"Michigan lawmakers have introduced the "Anticorruption of Public Morals Act," which would ban pornography in the state and set penalties of up to 20 years in prison or a $100,000 fine, with higher penalties of 25 years and $125,000 for trafficking more than 100 pieces of prohibited content, according to CBS News Detroit.

The bill would also require internet service providers to block access to such material. Rep. Josh Schriver, who is sponsoring the bill, said, "These measures defend children, safeguard our communities, and put families first," and that "Obscene and harmful content online threatens Michigan families, especially children," as per WLNS. If passed, Michigan would be the first state to enact a total ban on pornography, going beyond measures in Florida and Texas that require age verification. Civil liberty and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have raised concerns about the proposal."

Michigan GOP Proposes Sweeping "Anticorruption of Public Morals Act"

-----------------

House Bill 4938: 

2025-HIB-4938.pdf

It's all in there.

" 21 (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), material that at common law was not protected by adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting laws abridging freedom of speech or of the press  etc. etc.