By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Project 2025, a conservative manifesto authored by Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, calls for the outright banning of pornography in the United States. The manifesto argues that pornography should be outlawed, its creators and distributors imprisoned, and that even those involved in its distribution through education and libraries should be designated as sex offenders. The manifesto’s authors believe that pornography is not protected by the First Amendment and argue that it is harmful and addictive. With a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, Project 2025 believes it can overturn the current legal precedent set by Miller vs. California, which protects sexually explicit material that meets specific criteria. This could have significant consequences for the entertainment industry, sex education, and the broader definition of what constitutes obscenity.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump’s election win sparked widespread concern that porn could be banned in the United States. While the idea initially seemed like a joke, the possibility quickly gained traction as people started to realize the implications of such a move.
The real issue wasn’t just about banning pornographic websites, but about the potential impact on various forms of entertainment, including video games, movies, television shows, and independent creators who produce content that may be considered risque. People argued that banning porn would constitute a serious infringement on freedom of speech, and many expressed concern about the potential for the ban to be used as a tool for discrimination against marginalized groups.
One of the most concerning aspects of this potential ban was the potential for it to be used to suppress LGBTQ+ individuals. Some people argued that the government could use the ban as a pretext to label any depiction of transgender people as pornography, thereby criminalizing their existence. Similarly, they feared that same-sex relationships and cohabitations could also be categorized as pornography, leading to the persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals.
This fear stemmed from the belief that the Republican party, now in control of both the House and Senate, would be able to pass legislation that would ban porn, despite any veto from President Trump. The concern was that the Republican-controlled Supreme Court would then uphold such legislation, effectively silencing voices and criminalizing entire communities.
Many people voiced their frustration with the potential for the ban to be used as a weapon against those who are already marginalized. They argued that the ban was not about protecting children or promoting morality, but rather about controlling what people can do with their bodies and silencing dissenting voices.
Some pointed out the irony of the situation, noting that while the Republican party was pushing for a ban on pornography, they had no qualms about supporting candidates who had engaged in questionable behavior, including sexual assault. This hypocrisy further fueled the belief that the ban was not about morality, but about control and power.
The potential ban on porn also highlighted the dangers of relying on memes and soundbites instead of engaging with political discourse in a more nuanced way. People were urged to read the policy proposals put forward by political parties and candidates, rather than relying on secondhand interpretations and social media trends.
While the idea of a porn ban seemed ludicrous at first, the concerns expressed by many people highlighted the potential for such a ban to be used as a tool for oppression and discrimination. The possibility of a ban on porn was a stark reminder of the need to be vigilant against the erosion of freedoms and the potential for the government to misuse its power.