Maine Democrat says she's against limiting child access to "obscene" material

Thank you for this helpful illustration of culture rot. I agree when people cannot understand what they are reading and fail to ask even the most basic questions to clarify what is really intended, it is a severe form of culture rot that permeates certain sectors of our society. You have provided a valuable service today, Mr. Monk!

 

Says the guy who spends hours posting fake or deceptive social media posts onto a political message board.

 

How about teaching standard curriculum and NOT sexualizing our children in school. That is the baseline... and the rest should be considered felony child abuse.

 

If dems are bad as they say they are, then you'd think they'd be able to find some legitimate quotes, and not have to make shit up...

 

This bill isn’t about curriculum, but your concern raises a similar question: who gets to decide what is “standard”?

 

I posted the actual quote above. Can we at least agree that her message is not accurately described by the thread title?

 

Definitely a double standard here when it comes to editing thread titles… I don’t understand why the less bias mods like @rivergator or @tilly do not make a point of editing these bogus right wing thread titles….


Maine Democrat says she's against limiting child access to "sex education" material

 

No, we don't want children being given access to these sites, pornographic or educational.

The job of the parents is once again being challenged in the State of Maine. Something like this will pass in the Free State of Florida when pigs fly.

These initiatives continue to show democratic policies being pushed that America voted down in the 2024 election and before. Virginia had a major upheaval that would not have happened had parents not been told to sit down and shut up as the State knows better.

I'll also add that the church is a far better option than the state but leave it to the parents to help their children with sexual education.

 

Yes, the thread title is accurate. There appears to be 2 women in that video. Opposition to limiting access of young children is discussed.

 

The new thread title with the word obscene is closer, but it is still not accurate. As war points out, the lawmaker is clearly not trying to give children access to obscene materials. She is trying to protect access to health information wrongly labeled as obscene by the wording of this law. Again:

“These parameters could limit young people’s access to sexual and reproductive healthcare information on websites that might fall under the definition of obscenity but really be intended for educational purposes.”
​

And if we want to be technical, she doesn’t even use the word “obscene”. She says “obscenity”.

 

The bill would apply to 17-year-olds

 

Just curious, why was the information for when children/youth are getting sex information off the internet? Okay, so they are getting it, so let's make sure the State gets it right?

I'm opposed to the State being involved in sex education.

 

Yeah, and as far as I can tell, the age of consent in 16 in Maine. If that's correct, it'd be interesting if the state decides that 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to consent to actual sex but that private and public litigation is needed to protect the same age group from seeing sexual videos. I suppose apparent tensions already exist when it comes to the application of state and federal laws. For example, as I understand it, a 40 year old man can have sex with a 16 year old under Alabama law but risks federal incarceration if he films it.

 

@ETGator1, are you disagreeing that the congresswoman said that this law might limit access to reproductive health information?

Let’s say another poster had found this same video and posted it with this thread title: “Maine Democrat concerned that proposed anti-obscenity law would also restrict access to reproductive healthcare websites”. Would you change this title because it is inaccurate?