Does watching porn threaten your masculinity? Science says it doesn’t. Is porn addictive? No, it’s not. Is sexual expression that is consenting legally protected by the First Amendment? Yes, …
This is not going to stop porn. All it will do is criminalize the actors, producers, and viewers.
I’m reminded of the drug war, where they took a relatively harmless narcotic used disproportionally by minority populations at the time (Marijuana), and used it to criminalize and imprison large swaths of the population, especially within the black community.
It’s no coincidence that most of the folks targeted by this effort are women and sex industry workers, which skew liberal by a large degree. Note I’m not just talking about prostitution or porn actors, but the entire sex industry, including toys and books.
The GOP is scared shitless of the rising power of women in modern society, and being able to criminalize and consequently attack the revenue stream of sex industry workers is a way to blunt it. There’s also an element of class warfare involved, as OnlyFans or similar sites are often the most economical way for a young woman to lift herself out of poverty if she has no other marketable skills.
Actually, when William Hearst originally started the campaign in the 20s to take out the hemp farmers that were competing with his timber business (he bought up most of Humboldt so he could corner the paper market), he targeted Hispanics (primarily Mexicans) with Marijuana in his articles about drug crimes and how they were ruining America. Henry Ansligner bought it hook, line and sinker, and he set the tone until the 40s, when hemp was briefly made legal for the war effort. Note that Jack Herer’s The Emperor Wears No Clothes does an excellent job illustrating this historical relationship.
Once the Beats started smoking weed in 50s, hemp was criminalized again, and the prohibition was expanded to felony status as law enforcement started targeting the evolution of the Beat movement, the hippies.
The subsequent prohibition on cocaine products was targeted at black neighborhoods (as per the GOP intention during the Nixon/Reagan era), and was built upon the “successes” of the previous marijuana prohibition.
No, cocaine was for black people in the 50s and 60s. Crack wasn’t a thing yet. Crack was another way they came up with to put black people in prison, but that was in the 80s.
The GOP is scared shitless of the rising power of women in modern society, and being able to criminalize and consequently attack the revenue stream of sex industry workers is a way to blunt it.
I agree that this is a big part of the war on porn. These stuffy prudes are seeing soceal/cultural norms changing before their eyes and they hate it.
I also think they’re using it as an angle of attack to undermine online privacy/security in an effort to chill free speech/expression online. It’s all about control.
This is not going to stop porn. All it will do is criminalize the actors, producers, and viewers.
I’m reminded of the drug war, where they took a relatively harmless narcotic used disproportionally by minority populations at the time (Marijuana), and used it to criminalize and imprison large swaths of the population, especially within the black community.
It’s no coincidence that most of the folks targeted by this effort are women and sex industry workers, which skew liberal by a large degree. Note I’m not just talking about prostitution or porn actors, but the entire sex industry, including toys and books.
The GOP is scared shitless of the rising power of women in modern society, and being able to criminalize and consequently attack the revenue stream of sex industry workers is a way to blunt it. There’s also an element of class warfare involved, as OnlyFans or similar sites are often the most economical way for a young woman to lift herself out of poverty if she has no other marketable skills.
Marijuana was so they could arrest hippies. Cocaine was so they could arrest black people.
Source: one of the guys responsible for the war on drugs straight up said it.
Actually, when William Hearst originally started the campaign in the 20s to take out the hemp farmers that were competing with his timber business (he bought up most of Humboldt so he could corner the paper market), he targeted Hispanics (primarily Mexicans) with Marijuana in his articles about drug crimes and how they were ruining America. Henry Ansligner bought it hook, line and sinker, and he set the tone until the 40s, when hemp was briefly made legal for the war effort. Note that Jack Herer’s The Emperor Wears No Clothes does an excellent job illustrating this historical relationship.
Once the Beats started smoking weed in 50s, hemp was criminalized again, and the prohibition was expanded to felony status as law enforcement started targeting the evolution of the Beat movement, the hippies.
The subsequent prohibition on cocaine products was targeted at black neighborhoods (as per the GOP intention during the Nixon/Reagan era), and was built upon the “successes” of the previous marijuana prohibition.
This is why I don’t think they’ll stop at porn.
Crack was for black people, cocaine was for rich people. That’s why 5g of crack got you the same sentence as 500g of cocaine
No, cocaine was for black people in the 50s and 60s. Crack wasn’t a thing yet. Crack was another way they came up with to put black people in prison, but that was in the 80s.
Nah, hippies were using LSD
Sweet summer child. A group can do more than one drug. Sometimes even at once.
I agree that this is a big part of the war on porn. These stuffy prudes are seeing soceal/cultural norms changing before their eyes and they hate it.
I also think they’re using it as an angle of attack to undermine online privacy/security in an effort to chill free speech/expression online. It’s all about control.