How would you rephrase the 1st amendment so it doesn't protect pornography?
No rewording, just a cum tribute.
Every amendment should have an **only applies to white europeans
>>24722752Why, why would we want do that?
>>24722752pornography already isn't protected by the first amendment.
>coloring book tier tattoowhy half ass something permanent like a tattoo, I would invest probably about 20 hours of thought and reflection into the design - should I ever get ink*ed
>>24722752are hapa girls > pure euro girls?
>>24722752What will happen in the future is that "content creating", porn shooting and escort/sex services are going to become more commonplace and more "accepted", in that there will be companies and agencies that openly offer these types of jobs and there will be even more material produced from such jobs that the price of it will be lowered drastically resulting in something like females going to a porn shoot for McDonald's wage.Side note: I'm not an American, so I don't care about your amendments.
>>24722790>I would invest probably about 20 hours of thought and reflection into the designOn a scale between 10 and 10, how autistic are yoi?
>>24722816this won't happen because the American economy is about to undergro a drastic transformation as the service economy collapses. you can't have a country where 75% of the populace works completely unproductive jobs for so long.
>>24722822There is no reason for it to collapse at this point. The economy will just be more about poor servicing the rich and rich dropping some crumbles to the poor here and there.
>>24722865wealth inequality is precisely the reason it will collapse.the current mode of government will be overthrown due to social unrest, causing a dictator to come into power. a dictator will want to limit the power of the ultra wealthy to solidify his own power. he will do this by shutting down bullshit jobs, nationalizing more industry and moving workers into industrial jobs. trump is already trying to do this and it has happened to many countries throughout history. it will happen within the next ten years.
>>24722869also americans dont really care about our amendments either. trump has already openly and clearly tried to violate the 14th amendment and no one cared. if it's in the interest of a dictator to ban or limit pornography, he will do it regardless of whether the first amendment protects it or not (which it doesn't anyway).
>>24722752>How would you rephrase the 1st amendment so it doesn't protect pornography?Typical Charlie Kirk Assassin response, can't beat pornography using free speech or rhetoric, must either imprison or kill it. Grow some willpower, or spiritual arguments or fuck off.
>>24722869>wealth inequality is precisely the reason it will collapseI doubt it since wealth inequality isn't exactly a problem for those that are in power, and those that are not in power cannot do anything about it anyway.The problem with dictator coming into power is that those ultra wealthy institutions and people are already more powerful than him, meaning he will not be able to nationalise industry, only drive companies away and try appointing incompetent people to handle industry like socialist countries did. I also don't really think Trump is a dictator.
>>24722886there are multiple groups competing for power. the senate and traditional government is one group, these are the democrat screechers impotently seething against trump and the judges convicting him of federal crimes only for him to still get away with it. another group is the ultra wealthy. in the past they only wanted profit, but as they gain more power they will naturally want political power as well.another group is the demagogue wannabe dictators, i.e. trump, who has currently allied himself with the ultra wealthy (he himself being a billionaire).there is also the military, which currently hasn't shown any real independence but could become more relevant in a power struggle soon. a dictator could come from any one of these groups. you say that there won't be a dictator because the government's power is handicapped by the wealthy. but the fact that the government is competing with the ultra wealthy is why there will be chaos that will result in a dictator. if someone from the ultra wealthy were to become a dictator, he would do the same things as if a demagogue became the dictator or a military leader became the dictator. the point is there will be a period of massive chaos out of which a dictator will rise. the other corporations will have been weakened in the power struggle which will allow the dictator to fuck them over.
>>24722904My point is that the ultra rich handicap on government is so large that it effectivelly allows them to create a cap on what is happening. Not that they are too big to fail, but that they have such rigid mechanisms and such number of resources against failure that you'll get rid of them only with an atomic bomb. My point is that I don't think this will go according to the expected scenario of unrest, revolution, dictator, seizure of power, rebuilding and so on. Rather, I think that there will be a further moral decline and degradation into market-view of the world (more on that later), which will leads into a further dystopia. I think eventual end is more likely to come via war, disaster, disease or some such thing.
I cannot understand why the two anons talk to one another without calling each other a faggot incel I wanna save this rare occurrence
>>24722752im going to masturbate to this photo to the point that wet, lube-slapping sounds will echo out of the bathroom while im vigorously rubbing my cock until coom flies out
>>24722930well, it depends on the timeline. I'm saying the current order will be overthrown in the next decade or so. if corporations delay that then what you could describe could happen. the civil war started only seven years after bleeding kansas started. political violence now seems to be kicking off, so I think shit will happen soon. corporations have a lot of money, but I'm not sure if they can engineer society to keep growing their power while keeping open conflict at bay.
>>24722796Why would hapas be greater?
>>24722946
>>24722988sexy combo
No need, pornography is not speech or press and the question of it being such has come before federal judges before who said it was but the question hasn’t come before the Supreme Court, which in their last ruling said obscenity has no protection of the first amendment unless it has some clear artistic intent to it
>>24722999nothing ever happens because even if there was a war it would be nothing, not because a war won't happen.
>>24722940This thread made me masturbate just two hours after having masturbated.
>>24722752Why would I?
>>24722752I wouldn't. I'd just enshrine a separate amendment that calls for the death of all whores and pornographers.
>>24722752Some Jew judge enabled it to apply to pornography to subvert our country. The people were against gay marriage and integration too but the government forced it on us, then claims we live in a democracy.
>>24723243But not the death penalty for men who consume pornography or visit prostitutes? Fascinating
>>24722770and just because they're extra tricky, I'd add (no jews)
>>24723297one hand washes the other
>>24723247I'm pretty sure Larry Flint lost that case lmao
>>24722752Obscenity isn't protected by the First Amendment. The government could ban porn if they wanted to.
>>24723247You have no idea what you're talking about. A single judge can't create any sort of binding precedent for constitutional interpretation. At minimum you'd need two judges on a three-judge Court of Appeals panel, and that would only apply to cases in their circuit.
>>24722752I would just add another amendment that protected porn featuring white men having sex with Asian women. Then the constitution would be read with the 1st amendment not protecting any porn, and the 28th amendment as protected WMAF porn exclusively.
>>24722869I doubt it.At this point I reckon the American Caesar is probably going to come from the centre Democrat side and be the staunch guardian of upper and middle class interests versus the populist horde. The fact that the whole West Point demographic come from this kind of material tells you all you need to know to predict what an American military dictatorship would actually look like. It’d be the dictatorship of neoliberalism rather than anything based or revolutionary.
>>24724283They cannot wear condoms in the porn and the male actor must finish inside at least once during the footage.
>>24722752First you'd have to define pornography.
>>24722819No, that's entirely reasonable for something you'll have for the rest of your life.
>>24724324I like cumshots too, but maybe the female must eat the cum, even if it's a creampie.
>>24724347I know it when I see it.
>>24724347This.If you said it wrong then you couldn't even take a photo in bikini.
>>24724371Okay, are we going to have you personally examining every single publication called into question? Hope your schedule is clear!
>>24723018>unless it has some clear artistic intent to itAnd who should possess the legal authority to determine "artistic intent"?
>>24724379Oh, it is. Believe me, it is.
>>24723018>pornography is not speech or pressObjection
>>24724376>you couldn't even take a photo in bikini
>>24723018>No need, pornography is not speech or press and the question of it being such has come before federal judges before who said it was but the question hasn’t come before the Supreme Court, which in their last ruling said obscenity has no protection of the first amendment unless it has some clear artistic intent to itNigga, what the fuck. Did someone hit you over the head with a shovel before you typed this?
>>24722790forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing
>>24722752>except pornography
>>24724634Okay, how are you defining "pornography"?
>>24724414>Izzetugutmen?Yezz, izze verry gutmen
>>24724418Some people here legit sound like bots man. I sometimes write badly but when a post that has an argument that it not just illogical but strangely proposed is often a bot.
>>2472510410/10 post lol
>>24722752I'm a heterosexual man who is sexually attracted to women. So I wouldn't.
>>24725147Hey Mr. Lit Anonymous, hast du Lust, das gute alte GTA San Andres mit Touhou-Mods zu spielen? ⊂(◉‿◉)つ
>>24722752Rewording it is pointless. Words mean nothing if the people don't believe in them. The only thing that makes the Constitution more than a piece of paper is that the system and the people believe in them, granting it legitimacy. It obviously was not meant to apply to pornography, it wasn't meant to protect blasphemy etc.... Americans of the past knew about this and saw zero issue in banning pornography or banning blasphemous publications (at least in certain areas) and the Supreme Court did nothing to oppose it.The Constitution could be changed to say literally anything, if the system and people don't hold the same interpretation or beliefs to be worth something then it is simply words. The problem right now is that people do not agree on their fundamental beliefs, and what certain supposed agreed beliefs even mean. To play the legal game is to play a losing game.
