look at the shiny new censorship law in indiana

[tanah]

i was so busy paying attention to 4 other pieces of legislation, i never even heard about this.

House Enrolled Act 1042, which takes effect July 1, has the fatal flaw common to government efforts to constrict the free expression guaranteed under the First Amendment. That is to say, it blasts away at noncombatants because there's no defining its

Comments

[knightos]

Actually, talked to my lawyer friend about this on Wendesday. He said that the Star was not factual in its reporting. He still thinks that the new law is bad, as it takes the already nebulous description of pornography (defined by what it isn't; pornography is material about nudity or sexuality that does not contribute artistic, political, cultural, scientific, etc value [horribly paraphrased here, since I'm not a lawyer]) and tacks onto that, "for a child." So basically we have an a definition that is even more obfuscated than the original one. He says that it looks like this will go all the way to the Supreme Court if it isn't stricken down before then.

[violi]

The part that gets me over and over again, and the part that no one will ever bother to argue, is the whole selling "physically stimulating" items to minors.

OMG, maybe if they could get off by themselves they wouldn't have that elbowy unprotected teenager sex that all Replublicans are so terrified of. Maybe they'd be more comfortable with their bodies so that when they actually do have sex they won't be so freaked out that they won't be able to pay attention to the having of the safe sex and their partner's comfort level.

And finally, it is NORMAL for teenagers to want to get off. Dumbasses.
Rargh.

it is NORMAL for teenagers to want to get off

[bzero]

Yes, but they're supposed to pray for that desire to go away until they're married.