• rmuk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    If it’s a legal definition then that’s the problem.

    • Donut@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      If you want to start talking to lawmakers about wanting to watch porn without having to show ID, you would be dismissed if you’re going to cite free speech being the right it is infringing upon. Privacy would be a better starting point, for example.

      • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s your personal interpretation. I think you’re full of shite and so does Larry Flint.

      • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Big shame people are unaware of a century’s worth of obscenity law… how in western democracy the high courts literally found that laws like these violated free speech protections over “local prurient interests” and hence struck down those laws.