madame_zora
Sexy Member
Kernes was asked to simplify his post to clarify what was being done, here was his reply:
To hell with NASCAR voters people's morals are in jeopardy!
Underestimating what this administration and its supporters are willing to do to rid the world of sexually explicit material is a mistake too many in this industry make.
But you're right; I do tend to get a little technical ... and hope the audience can keep up with me ... and suggest that if they have trouble doing so, it would do them good to get more acquainted with legal terms and to better understand how legal proceedings work.
To answer your question, HR 3132 HAS had HR 3726 added to it, and HR 3132 has been passed by the full House. It therefore goes to the Senate for consideration, but the usual course of such child safety bills is that they get little (if any) debate and their passage is almost a given. This has been the course of every anti-adult bill passed by the feds at least since the Communications Decency Act in 96, and possibly since the original 2257 legislation in 1988.
HR 3132s passage in the Senate is likely to hinge on whether Hollywood, which IS affected by the removal of actual from sexually explicit contact, decides to speak up this time. They lauded Free Speech loudly after it won its CPPA case, but didnt utter a peep (or pony up a dime) while the case was in progress (and contributed no money afterwards either). But given the Hollywood-bashing temprament of, say, Fox News, its unlikely Hollywood will come out publicly against it this time either and it doesnt have enough clout in this area to get it changed or sunk behind the scenes, either IMO.
A word in defense of Free Speech's lobbyist, though: Note that HR 3726 was introduced on Monday (9/12), added to HR3132 on Wednesday, and that whole bill was approved by the House that same day. That's pretty fast work, even for the reactionary right, and it doesn't surprise me that FSC's lobbyist, Aubrey King, wasn't given the heads-up by any of his contacts. The reactionaries don't usually give us advance warning of their attempts to deep-six the First Amendment.- Mark Kernes
More passing laws to rid us of our freedoms without our consent, or anyone having an opportunity to dissent. Whether you like porn or not, how do you like your rights yanked out from under you without your permission? What people fail to understand is that this is NOT just about porn, it's about the lack of procedure being followed to change existing laws. If we give this up, there will be no end.
To hell with NASCAR voters people's morals are in jeopardy!
Underestimating what this administration and its supporters are willing to do to rid the world of sexually explicit material is a mistake too many in this industry make.
But you're right; I do tend to get a little technical ... and hope the audience can keep up with me ... and suggest that if they have trouble doing so, it would do them good to get more acquainted with legal terms and to better understand how legal proceedings work.
To answer your question, HR 3132 HAS had HR 3726 added to it, and HR 3132 has been passed by the full House. It therefore goes to the Senate for consideration, but the usual course of such child safety bills is that they get little (if any) debate and their passage is almost a given. This has been the course of every anti-adult bill passed by the feds at least since the Communications Decency Act in 96, and possibly since the original 2257 legislation in 1988.
HR 3132s passage in the Senate is likely to hinge on whether Hollywood, which IS affected by the removal of actual from sexually explicit contact, decides to speak up this time. They lauded Free Speech loudly after it won its CPPA case, but didnt utter a peep (or pony up a dime) while the case was in progress (and contributed no money afterwards either). But given the Hollywood-bashing temprament of, say, Fox News, its unlikely Hollywood will come out publicly against it this time either and it doesnt have enough clout in this area to get it changed or sunk behind the scenes, either IMO.
A word in defense of Free Speech's lobbyist, though: Note that HR 3726 was introduced on Monday (9/12), added to HR3132 on Wednesday, and that whole bill was approved by the House that same day. That's pretty fast work, even for the reactionary right, and it doesn't surprise me that FSC's lobbyist, Aubrey King, wasn't given the heads-up by any of his contacts. The reactionaries don't usually give us advance warning of their attempts to deep-six the First Amendment.- Mark Kernes
More passing laws to rid us of our freedoms without our consent, or anyone having an opportunity to dissent. Whether you like porn or not, how do you like your rights yanked out from under you without your permission? What people fail to understand is that this is NOT just about porn, it's about the lack of procedure being followed to change existing laws. If we give this up, there will be no end.
