Man I love it when someone throws a wrench in the secularist delusion.
The bill, set to be introduced next month by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Elgin), would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that "lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value" in any medium.
The measure defines "obscene material" as the depiction or description of any "acts of sexual intercourse," including those that are "normal or perverted, actual or simulated."
Guys, I already like Dusty, you don't have to sell me on him!
Under the measure, pictures of human genitals or women's breasts would also be banned as well as "lewd exhibition" of the "buttocks."
It would carry prison sentences of up to a year and $2,000 fines.
...
The prudish proposal would also allow anyone who produces or promotes the allegedly untoward content to be sued by any state resident for $10,000.
Married couples would be exempt from the ban, provided they only share explicit content they created together with each other.
"Prudish?"
One man is trying to return America to just a small level of decency, the kind of thing everyone would have supported 100 years ago, and everyone on the Left (and some on the right) are freaking out about it.
They'll call this "Christian Nationalism" but the idea that recorded sex acts are protected speech is immoral, harebrained, and has nothing to do with the Founding Father's vision of free speech.
He's saying the same thing that the New York Post published as an opinion just a few years ago!
Check out the replies:
Seriously, 60 years ago this would be the least controversial law in the books. Do you think we've morally progressed since then? You think open licentiousness has created a better society?
The "objections" to the bill are all pretty small-brained takes.
Don't be a pea-brain.
Stop making excuses for pornographers.
It's okay to prefer God's law and decency to the latest "free speech" argument.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
