GOP Deploys Leftist Trope vs. Porn

Before the GOP became a nationalist/theocratic cesspit, it was a band of cowards who would soil themselves the moment some leftist brought up poverty while they posed as champions of capitalism.

Today, they have found a way to be even more disgraceful: Throw capitalism under the bus, and adapt left-wing arguments to be deployed against ... porn.

This is both a trial balloon and a proof-of concept. If this succeeds, just wait to see how else they'll try cram their religious strictures down your throat.

The below is buried within a Reason Magazine article, about Mike Lee's (R-Utah) PROTECT Act, which could ban all existing pornography from the internet as it is written today.

The rationale will sound familiar to anyone who grew up (as I did) while the South was under the thumb of Southern Baptists and to anyone whose has suffered an RSI to his eye muscles (as mine have) by rolling his eyes every time some mealy-mouthed leftist has used poverty as an excuse for crime (individual theft not sanctioned by the state) or redistributionism (theft performed by the state):

What's next? Banning alcohol (again)? (Image by unknown photographer, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)

And in all cases, we're left with this broad and vague definition of consent as a guiding principle. The bill states that consent "does not include coerced consent" and defines "coerced consent" to include not just any consent obtained through "fraud, duress, misrepresentation, undue influence, or nondisclosure" or consent from someone who "lacks capacity" (i.e., a minor) but also consent obtained "though exploiting or leveraging the person's immigration status; pregnancy; disability; addiction; juvenile status; or economic circumstances."

With such broad parameters of coercion, all you may have to say is "I only did this because I was poor" or "I only did this because I was addicted to drugs" and your consent could be ruled invalid -- entitling you to collect tens of thousands of dollars from anyone who distributed the content or a tech platform that didn't remove it quickly enough. Even if the tech company or porn distributor or individual uploader ultimately prevailed in such lawsuits, that would only come after suffering the time and expense of fending the suits off. [bold added]

That's right. After decades of being too frightened to contest the idea that one man's need is another man's moral duty, conservatives haven't bothered to think for themselves for once, or (if they ever did) finally dared to say Nobody owes another anything simply because he needs it.

No. They have instead chosen to say, Okay. Men are obligated to arrange their lives around the needs of others, and we declare that others 'need' to be unable to see porn -- or anything else we decide is 'offensive' to the deity we have never proved exists and whose will we claim to know.

What's next? Welfare for "porn exploitation survivors"? Don't laugh: Conservatives are now big fans of welfare for women whom they've denied abortions to.

I said years ago that the moment a religious conservative saw a conflict between his religion and freedom, he would throw freedom under the bus.

As usual, I was right.

Today, they're going after the porn industry, an easily demonized target.

What will they do tomorrow?

Rank-and-file conservatives would do well to stop cheering abuses like this, and salivating over what they hope people like Mike Lee will target next. Rather, they should consider something they like that some nut from a religion not their own somewhere might object to, and think about that getting banned on some equally ridiculous pretext.

-- CAV