Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Fox8: Watching porn now requires age verification in Louisiana because of new law. Adult sites pull out (😏) of Virginia due to new law.

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Would you give your ID to a porn site?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you give your ID to a porn site?

    • Yes it seems trustworthy enough
      0
    • Not at all
      10
    • Never watched the stuff. Scouts honor.
      3

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
ixcuincle

ixcuincle

Posted
Posted

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-johnson-porn-monitoring-remarks-national-security-concerns-1841054

 

Resurfaced comments in which new House Speaker Mike Johnson talked about how he and his son monitor each other's online activity using "accountability software" have raised questions about national security.

 

Johnson, a Republican who was first elected to Congress in 2016, spoke in 2022 about how he installed software called Covenant Eyes on his devices during a panel called "War on Technology" at Cypress Baptist Church in Benton, Louisiana, Rolling Stone reported.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

... during a panel called "War of Technology" ....

 

Let me guess. 

 

1). He's in favor of it. 

2). And he's illustrating his contribution to the war effort, by stating that he's using a third party computer program, to keep watch on the personal computer(s) that he uses, to access other computers, via the Internet (of computers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan since a Fetus

Fan since a Fetus

Posted
Posted

I’ve always shared my porn with my mom. We LOVE the incest videos!!! Please don’t take that away from us My Johnson, sorry…Mike. 
 

…and by my mom, I meant Gaia. Yes, I masturbate in the woods, alone hanging upside down from a strong sturdy red oak. Think Adam Driver with a pasty white boy hanging off one of his limbs.

 

PURR PURR ME FLIPIIN OW!!!! 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted

According to this website, which I've not heard of before, Mike Johnson's oldest son is currently 18.

 

https://iitnotablealumni.com/mike-johnson-family-photos-wife-and-kids/#google_vignette

 

So if he made that statement in 2022, then he'd been sharing his pornography habits with his minor child.  

 

Important context, this is a person who thinks LGBT people are sexual deviants and has equated homosexuality to pedophilia.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan since a Fetus

Fan since a Fetus

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

According to this website, which I've not heard of before, Mike Johnson's oldest son is currently 18.

 

https://iitnotablealumni.com/mike-johnson-family-photos-wife-and-kids/#google_vignette

 

So if he made that statement in 2022, then he'd been sharing his pornography habits with his minor child.  

 

Important context, this is a person who thinks LGBT people are sexual deviants and has equated homosexuality to pedophilia.  


So he was sharing porn with a 15 year old? Why isn’t that bigger news? Shouldn’t the Republicans be raging against this, well, minus Matt Gaetz and the others that get busted.

 

I feel like he should be voted out and they should have to find a new speaker. 
 

 

edit: just to add, I haven’t listened to the videos, but the words reportedly coming from his mouth does not say porn explicitly. Did he actually say porn? 
 

if he didn’t say porn, then their is another angle of having his devices scanned by a third party. He’s a government official. Should he be having his de ices scanned in this way? I understand he probably has government issued phones and laptops. Does he have those scanned as well?

 

I would think not. But, it is something to consider. 
 

…and on the 7th day, god created accountability software so he and others may watch your devilry and slap the little monkey accordingly.

 

Edited by Fan since a Fetus
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

edit: just to add, I haven’t listened to the videos, but the words reportedly coming from his mouth does not say porn explicitly. Did he actually say porn? 


He does not use the term “porn.”  He does refer to “objectionable images” and from the entire context, it is crystal clear he is talking about porn. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think the generous, and maybe most likely, reading is that Mike Johnson is a true believer, does not himself watch porn, and expects that his son won't either.  So there is no sharing of objectionable materials, it's just a hyper-religious parent banning his kid from watching porn and using technology to enforce it.  I think that's within his rights as a parent, and I also suspect that  that young Jack Johnson either (1) has other methods for viewing what he wants to view that aren't monitored and reported to his dad or (2) has grown up so sheltered that he hasn't yet discovered that his pee pee has a second SINISTER function. 

 

I think Mike Johnson lives in a town like the one in Footloose BEFORE Kevin Bacon arrived. 

 

That doesn't help with the national security implications, and I think it's way too generous to assume that Mike Johnson keeps his work stuff on a device that isn't regularly monitored by a creepy third-party porn monitoring service.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan since a Fetus

Fan since a Fetus

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think the generous, and maybe most likely, reading is that Mike Johnson is a true believer, does not himself watch porn, and expects that his son won't either.  So there is no sharing of objectionable materials, it's just a hyper-religious parent banning his kid from watching porn and using technology to enforce it.  I think that's within his rights as a parent, and I also suspect that  that young Jack Johnson either (1) has other methods for viewing what he wants to view that aren't monitored and reported to his dad or (2) has grown up so sheltered that he hasn't yet discovered that his pee pee has a second SINISTER function. 

 

I think Mike Johnson lives in a town like the one in Footloose BEFORE Kevin Bacon arrived. 

 

That doesn't help with the national security implications, and I think it's way too generous to assume that Mike Johnson keeps his work stuff on a device that isn't regularly monitored by a creepy third-party porn monitoring service.  


I agree with everything you wrote here. That is what I was thinking as well, but where is the fun in that? 
 

i like alternative facts way way better

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
ixcuincle

ixcuincle

Posted
Posted

"To kick off the new year, Montana and North Carolina joined a growing number of states enforcing laws requiring age verification to access adult content online."

 

Uncomfortable with this trend but if it makes you feel better like 3 sites are affected

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
China

China

Posted
Posted
On 1/3/2024 at 2:06 PM, ixcuincle said:

"To kick off the new year, Montana and North Carolina joined a growing number of states enforcing laws requiring age verification to access adult content online."

 

Uncomfortable with this trend but if it makes you feel better like 3 sites are affected

 

 

 

Montana and North Carolina are slackers.  Oklahoma is trying to make viewing porn a felony:

 

Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Sending Sexy Selfies Unless You're Married

 

An anti-porn bill in Oklahoma is so extreme that it could even make sexting outside of a marriage a crime.

 

The wide-reaching bill would make merely viewing "obscene materials" a felony. It would also restrict "unlawful porn" distribution and production—with enforcement possible through both criminal prosecution and private lawsuits—and make it a misdemeanor to pose for, exhibit, or publish unlawful porn. And of course it would define these terms to include a huge array of sexually charged adult activity (far beyond what many people would consider pornography).

 

It's part of a wave of conservative plans targeting a very broad definition of "porn"—First Amendment be damned—that threatens not just "hardcore pornography" but all sorts of erotic expression. Whether or not this particular bill goes anywhere, it represents a resurgent moral panic over porn (more common on the right, but present in more progressive corners too) and associated attempts to restrict it. Sometimes these attempts take the form of pressure campaigns on financial institutions that do business with sex workers or porn companies. Sometimes they involve lawsuits against porn websites or other platforms where porn is shared. A lot of them lately have focused on requiring age verification for porn sites. And sometimes, as with this Oklahoma bill, they attempt to drastically expand what is considered illegal obscenity or pornography.

 

The measure—Oklahoma Senate Bill 1976—comes from state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R–District 32), who also put forth legislation to repeal no-fault divorce. It's slated to be formally introduced on February 5, but the text was already filed last week, giving us advance notice about how bad it is.

 

By and large, the First Amendment protects pornography, though there are some big exceptions. It does not protect porn that depicts people under age 18. And it does not protect "obscenity," an ill-defined category that's been the subject of many a court case. But most adult pornography is considered protected.

 

Decades of First Amendment law notwithstanding, Deevers' bill attempts to carve out a new category of largely prohibited content called "unlawful pornography."

 

His measure defines unlawful porn as "any visual depiction or individual image stored or contained in any format on any medium including, but not limited to, film, motion picture, videotape, photograph, negative, undeveloped film, slide, photographic product, reproduction of a photographic product, play, or performance" when the depiction involves basically any sort of sex act, nudity, partial nudity, or sexual fetish. Unlawful depictions include "sexual intercourse which is normal or perverted," along with oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation. Also included is any "lewd exhibition of the uncovered genitals, buttocks, or, if such person is female, the breast, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer"; any depiction of "physical restraint such as binding or fettering in the context of sexual conduct"; and the undefined category "sadomasochistic abuse."

 

If this were just a ban on what people call "hardcore pornography," it would still be bad. But it's not just about "hardcore pornography." The unlawful porn definition is broad enough to include all partnered or solo porn photos and videos (even the more tame stuff), and possibly even erotic drawings, strip clubs, burlesque, drag, depictions of domination, and more.

 

All "unlawful porn" would be off limits to produce or distribute unless it was deemed to have "serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value."

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
On 1/23/2024 at 8:00 AM, Larry said:

Sure is a good thing that when the GOP manages to seize power?  

 

They act like it's OK to actually reveal their agenda.  

 

Would they size power if they told us?

 

Maybe...depends...yes, in some cases : /

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...