3 ms·
They specifically were trying to illustrate how overly broad the law was, and > the law they’re defending sweeps in paintings like Manet’s Olympia (1863) It w
by berbec 3y ago
They specifically were trying to illustrate how overly broad the law was, and
> the law they’re defending sweeps in paintings like Manet’s Olympia (1863)
It wasn't a bad attempt to "illustrate what pornography is", but an example of what most would agree is NOT porn, but would be effected.
- mcpackieh 3y agoWhat techdirt definitely doesn't want to illustrate is the typical reality of what internet pornography is.
- berbec 3y agoCorrect, they wanted to illustrate how an overly broad law, supposedly designed to target pornography, would instead target art.
- mcpackieh 3y ago[flagged]
- berbec 3y ago> the typical reality of internet pornography, even though is what they want to be made available to kids You think this article show that TechDirt wants internet pornography to be available to children? I'm confused how you got there.
- nickthegreek 3y agoIf they want to ban explicit pornography, then the law needs to proper define explicit. If it can’t, then the law is broad and will infringe on protected rights. Imagine being pulled over by a cop for going “too fast”, but they get to decide what that means today. It’s ripe for abuse.
- kthejoker2 3y agoPlease write a description of "typical reality of Internet pornography" so we may all decide if we agree. The law in this article gave it a shot and seemingly missed the mark.
- quantified 3y agoWhat's the matter with pornography? All the porn I find on the internet arouses sexual interest, which is a good thing. No one's getting choked, stabbed, shat on, or anything vile, but a lot of people are either getting laid or getting ready to get laid. So what? Some will say that if it's not vile and degrading it's not porn. I think there's a question of defining terms.