Prominent MAGA Supporter Is Worried New KOSA Won’t Suppress Enough LGBTQ Speech
from the thanks-for-reminding-everyone-the-true-purpose-of-kosa dept
By now you know that Senator Richard Blumenthal has released a new version of KOSA, the misleadingly named Kids Online Safety Act, that he pretends fixes all the problems. It doesn’t. It still represents a real threat to speech online, and in particular speech from LGBTQ users. This is why Blumenthal, a prominent Democrat, is putting out press releases including supportive quotes from infamous anti-LGBTQ groups like the Institute for Family Studies and the “American Principles Project” (one of the leading forces behind anti-trans bills across the US). Incredibly, it also has an approving quote from NCOSE, formerly known as “Morality in Media,” a bunch of prudish busybodies who believe all pornography should be banned, and who began life trying to get “salacious” magazines banned.
When a bill is getting supportive quotes from NCOSE, an organization whose entire formation story is based around an attempt to ban books, you know that bill is not good for speech.
Why is a Democratic Senator like Blumenthal lining up with such regressive, censorial, far right nonsense peddlers? Well, because he doesn’t give a shit that KOSA is going to do real harm to LGBTQ kids or violate the Constitution he swore an oath to protect: he just wants to get a headline or two claiming he’s protecting children, with not a single care about how much damage it will actually do.
Of course, as we noted, the latest bill does make it marginally more difficult to directly suppress LGBTQ content. It removed the ability of state Attorneys General to enforce one provision, the duty of care provision, though still allows them to enforce other provisions and to sue social media companies if those state AGs feel the companies aren’t complying with the law.
Still, at least some of the MAGA crowd feel that this move, making it marginally more difficult for state AGs to try to force LGBTQ content offline means the bill is no longer worth supporting. Here’s Charlie Kirk, a leading MAGA nonsense peddler who founded and runs Turning Point USA, whining that the bill is no longer okay, since it won’t be used to silence LGBTQ folks as easily:

If you can’t read that, it’s Charlie saying:
The Senate is considering the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that looks to protect underage children from groomers, pornographers, and other predators online.
But the bill ran into trouble because LGBT groups were worried it would make it too easy for red state AGs to target predators who try to groom children into mutilating themselves or destroying themselves with hormones and puberty blockers.
So now, the bill has been overhauled to take away power from from state AGs (since some of them might be conservatives who care about children) and instead give almost all power to the FTC, currently read by ultra-left ideologue Lina Khan. Sure enough, LGBT groups have dropped all their concerns.
We’ve seen this pattern before. What are the odds that this bill does zero to protect children but a lot to vaguely enhance the power of Washington bureaucrats to destroy whoever they want, for any reason?
If you can get past his ridiculous language, you can see that he’s (once again, like the Heritage Foundation and KOSA co-sponsor Senator Marsha Blackburn before him) admitting that the reason the MAGA crowd supports KOSA is to silence LGBTQ voices, which he falsely attacks as “groomers, pornographers, and other predators.”
He’s wrong that the bill can’t still be used for this, but he’s correct that the bill now gives tremendous power to whoever is in charge of the FTC, whether its Lina Khan… or whatever MAGA incel could be put in place if Trump wins.
Meanwhile, if Kirk is so concerned about child predators and groomers, it’s odd you never see him call out the Catholic church. Or, his former employee who was recently sentenced to years in jail for his “collection” of child sexual abuse videos. Or the organization that teamed up with Turning Point USA to sponsor an event, even though the CEO was convicted of “coercing and enticing” a minor. It’s quite interesting that Kirk is so quick to accuse LGBTQ folks of “grooming” and “predation,” when he keeps finding actual such people around himself, and he never says a word.
Either way, I’m curious if watching groups like TPUSA freak out about this bill not being censorial enough of LGBTQ content will lead Republicans to get cold feet on supporting this bill.
At the very least, though, it’s a confirmation that Republican support for this bill is based on their strong belief that it will censor and suppress LGBTQ content.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, censorship, charlie kirk, free speech, kosa, lgbtq, richard blumenthal
Companies: american principles project, ncose, talking points usa



Comments on “Prominent MAGA Supporter Is Worried New KOSA Won’t Suppress Enough LGBTQ Speech”
That’s the charitable interpretation for his gusto in joining the fascist genocide.
Dems are setting this up so the kill switch is ready to go if they lose. GOP is doing the same.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
And people jump on me when I point out that liberals always end up enabling fascists.
Re:
And what would you have them do, suppress opposing viewpoints like the fascists do. If they do that, they become fascists themselves.
Re: Re:
“He had no choice but to draft legislation to help with the genocide!”
FOH with this shit.
Re: Re:
This is a particularly funny question to ask in a thread about them leveraging speech control to genocide queers.
Re: Re:
Suppress them via government power or threats of violence? No.
Suppress them by deplatforming their asses and refusing to treat their bullshit seriously? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Re: Re: Re:
Also, not kneejerking and closing our eyes to obvious problems would be a good start.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You can hide my comment, but this is still an example of liberals enabling fascists.
Re: Re:
Maybe if you made a serious and cogent argument people wouldn’t feel like flagging the comment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t an example of liberals helping fascists. I’m sorry if you don’t find that to be “serious” enough.
Re: Re: Re:2
If by “serious”, you mean “a repeat of the Japanese-American Internment, but with the 74 million who voted for Trump, but instead of actually interning them, you murder them with machineguns”…
Then… you’ve got to be kidding me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/what-is-genocide/the-ten-stages-of-genocide/
HTH, dumbfuck.
Re: Re: Re:4
While I’m unsure if you’re the same anonymous dumbfuck, yes, I am literally saying that that is how you want your little “crusade” to end up.
If that’s what you want, you also want to plunge America into a civil war, and that will not end pretty, either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
My “crusade” to stop the GOP from actively genociding the queers is a genocide in itself.
If it weren’t for false equivalences, the right wing would have no equivalences at all.
Re: Re: Re:6
As a queer person I am asking you to stop “defending” us.
Re: Re:
If proposed but not yet passed legislation is an example of what parties are doing then the GOP is 1,000 times worse with their stupid proposals than what Democrats are stupidly proposing.
As much as the majority of the Republican base is radical and evil, at least they’re honest.
Re:
Well, right until even the hint of blame or accountability is aimed their way, at which point suddenly everything is everyone’s fault but theirs and how dare people try to oppress and/or discriminate against them by thinking that the rules/laws apply to them as well.
Re: Re:
this is literally every right wing troll that keeps speeking here
Re: Re: Re:
― Jean-Paul Sartre
Dude was there for the original rise of fascism. He recognized even then that these are not serious people.
Re: Re: Re:2
so there basically sadists and just do it cuase it’s funny to them?
Re: Re: Re:3
Not so much funny as entertaining, but yes.
Re: Re: Re:4
Once you understand what they’re doing, it gets infinitely easier to break their scripts. And once you break their scripts and force them to try to think on their feet, you can actually make a game of getting them to demonstrate, with their own words, how idiotic they are.
Re: Re:
To wit: Chaya Raichik arguing that her anti-queer rhetoric (including calling out schools for being queer-friendly and such) wasn’t a form of stochastic terrorism that eventually got the results she(’ll never openly admit she) wanted by way of the vicious beating and eventual death of Nex Benedict.
Re: Re: Re:
She’s actually upset now that people are starting to notice the world would be better off without her.
Re: Re: Re:
3 on 1. That was a fucking lynching. Chaya Raichik got a teenager lynched.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sorry Sucker: preliminary information from the medical examiner’s office is that the Democrat-enabled beat-down did not cause the mentally ill teen’s death.
Try again, stochastic terrorist!
Re: Re: Re:3
hey dumbass troll
Re: Re: Re:3
Try what again? Pointing out that you’re astroturfing for someone who got a teenager lynched?
Re: Re: Re:3
I like how you’re arguing that the lynching didn’t kill them rather than arguing against the fact that Chaya Raichik helped cause the lynching.
Re: Re: Re:3
Sorry, sucker: preliminary information from the medical examiner’s office is not enough to conclude that the transphobic gobshite-enabled beat-down did not cause the mentally healthy teen’s death. Just sayin’.
Try again, stochastic terrorist enabler!
Re: Re: Re:3
She got a massive beating and then died the next day but it wasn’t the beating that killed her is the same stupidity about the officer that had the shit beat out of him by J6 terrorists and then died a few days later but somehow that too wasn’t caused by the beating. Thanks for proving Sartre correct.
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t worry. If the liberals and fascists can work together to get KOSA passed, we won’t even hear about stuff like this anymore.
You know. For the kids.
Re: Re: Re:
What I’m reading is that she is celebrating being a stochastic terrorist.
https://www.mediamatters.org/libs-tiktok/libs-tiktok-creator-chaya-raichik-celebrates-being-labeled-stochastic-terrorist
Re: Re: Re:2
Kinda reminds me of a CPAC banner, actually.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cpac-banner-domestic-terrorists/
Re: Re: Re:2
What’s worse is that she thinks ‘teerrorist’ was the word invented, not a new context of the word ‘stochastic’. Shows how little she actually bothers to use her brain.
For all of those who hate porn, LGBTQ or other speech, please know you do need to consume, use the close tab button etc should you stumble across some. Meanwhile stop trying to force your morals on those who hold different morals.
Re:
They literally just want to torture us.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Wrong. We want to liquidate you.
Don’t know why I have to keep saying this here…
Re: Re: Re:
hyman you really showing how stupid you really are
Re: Re: Re:
You’re so tough and cool.
Re: Re: Re:
If only you would personally try.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Given that 40+% of you sickos eventually kill yourselves anyway, why would I bother? Almost as good as coin-flip odds that you’ll do the work for me!! 😀
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m too old for that though. That’s kids’ deaths you’re cheering for.
Re: Re: Re:4
You’re probably replying to the same troll who thinks celebrating the deaths of Palestinian children in Gaza—teens, tweens, toddlers, babies—is the height of hilarity, moral righteousness, or both. My guess is they’re a late-teens/early-twenties dipshit who thinks 4chan’s /pol/ is “based and redpilled” and thinks trolling other websites by saying edgy edgelord shit makes them equally as based instead of just an annoying jackass. I also run on the assumption that they’re the same troll who does the “I’m so left-wing that I think all the cishets should be purged from society” schtick because he desperately wants someone here to agree with that bullshit so he can post more “I’m so right-wing that I worship Hitler” bullshit in response.
Re: Re: Re:5
I hope people realize that the first 4channers were the castoffs of the SomethingAwful Forums.
And a good chunk of those castoffs were white supremacists.
Re: Re: Re:6
“I hope people realize that the first 4channers were the castoffs of the SomethingAwful Forums.
And a good chunk of those castoffs were white supremacists.”
Re: Re: Re:3
hyman you love showing how stupid you really are
Re: Re: Re:
Oh shit we got us a genuine internet edgelord over here. Everyone be super careful cause he looks so badass with that hot pocket dribbling down his neckbeard.
Re:
…or those that don’t have any morals.
Laws are not about morality.
(already asked this in the last kosa article but asking again here)
hey, the brit here who keep’s worrying about kosa, this tweet happened a few day’s ago, i never watched school house rock’s, is she saying that kosa actually is dead or can it still enter the house?
https://twitter.com/moflatley/status/1758983955901026478
Re:
Short answer: It still can enter the House. But starting house negotiations in March results in a bill that is unlikely to move everything forward before a new congress is seated in January. Once a new congress is seated, all bills that failed to be signed into law are dead, and it has to start all over.
The abbreivated sequence:
-Negotiations/passage in Senate
[KOSA has failed to reach even this stage]
-Negotiations/passage in House (who goes first changes)
-Reconciliation (make the house and senate bills the same via negotiation.)
-Pass the new bill in Senate
-Pass the new bill in House
-Presidental signature (becomes law) or Veto.
-Potential veto override votes in house and senate.
Re: Re:
So because there is no house bill so far (or at least at the time of the tweet on the 17th) it’s unlikely that the bill will be able to make it all the way even if the house agreed with it?
Re: Re: Re:
Probably not this year. That said, our ostensible allies selling us out like this is worrying.
Re: Re: Re:2
Volunteering, happily, to sell us out.
Re: Re:
This isn’t wrong, but it’s not wholly right either. While a House version has not yet been introduced, they already have the sponsors lined up. With bills that have a lot of support and no significant opposition, it can be introduced and quickly passed in the House, if need be.
Do not think that the lack of a current House bill will hold this one up. By all accounts from what I’m hearing, there are House Reps happy to sponsor/co-sponsor the as passed version from the Senate. As such they wouldn’t need to negotiate and reconcile bills.
The real question is whether or not Mike Johnson supports the bill and will bring it to the floor (and then whether they can cobble together enough votes to pass it).
So I WOULD NOT expect process limitations to be the issue here. It’s more about the House (starting with Johnson) supporting the bill the Senate approves. That’s why Kirk’s statement is noteworthy. If he and his MAGA allies start to move away from supporting the bill, it could make the bill DOA.
Re: Re: Re:
Do we know how soon the Senate could vote on the bill?
Re: Re: Re:
so it’s that or netchoice suing it and throwing it out is like our only options?
It’s been focus on the harms to the LGBTQ+ community, but I think it’s always worth pointing out that hiding this will also harm straight children. Attempting to hide one component of society is not healthy (to anyone), and it will just make encounters with the other part(s) of society more awkward and/or painful.
Re:
The second part of the plan is to raise straight kids to hate us and bully us into suicide when we’re young. That’s what this whole “anti-woke” thing is about. They want to create a society where we’re tortured for existing, and they’re doing everything they can to keep people from telling us that’s not okay.
Re: Re:
I assume that anyone who vehemently opposes DEI initiatives also thinks the segregation era of U.S. history is a model for Making America Great Again.
Re: Re: Re:
They’re not trying to stop there.
Re: Re: Re:2
they want to kill off humanity cuase they believe in the end times right?
Re: Re: Re:3
Look to Iran for a conservative paradise. They’ll call their God “Jesus” instead of “Allah” here. But beyond that, fundamentalist fascism is fundamentalist fascism.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No one needs to “bully” you degenerates “into suicide” when 40+% of y’all willingly kill yourselves anyway.
Re: Re: Re:
ok hyman
Re: Re: Re:
You mean that people like you bully 40% of queers to suicide.
I mean, it’s not going to work on me. I’m an adult who can tell you’re just sad. That’s why you focus on torturing children.
'I don't get it, why are my enemies cheering on the bill I support...?'
This is why Blumenthal, a prominent Democrat, is putting out press releases including supportive quotes from infamous anti-LGBTQ groups like the Institute for Family Studies and the “American Principles Project” (one of the leading forces behind anti-trans bills across the US). Incredibly, it also has an approving quote from NCOSE, formerly known as “Morality in Media,” a bunch of prudish busybodies who believe all pornography should be banned, and who began life trying to get “salacious” magazines banned.
Continued support which should serve as a massive red flag for any (theoretically) pro-LGBTQ groups that maybe the amended bill isn’t as ‘harmless’ as they’ve been told.
Still, nice of the bigot here to make crystal clear why republicans are supporting the bill and in turn making it all the harder for any potential democrat supporters to even begin to claim that they aren’t willing to throw LGBTQ people under the bus if supporting the bill will give them a good soundbite.
Re:
Another charitable interpretation.
Re: Re:
True enough, while a willingness to throw LGBTQ people to the bigots is damning enough even that would still be giving the politicians involved the benefit of the doubt that their motives aren’t actively malicious, where silencing and/or harming LGBTQ people is the goal rather than ‘just’ the price they’re willing to have others pay.
Re: Re: Re:
It starts with the LGBTQ+ crowd and will expand to include minorities, liberals and then to anyone not sufficiently worshipping Trump or whoever they put up there.
It always ends up with people in mass graves, presumably shot.
Re: Re: Re:2
It actually starts with controlling women. An autonomous, educated female population is fascism’s worst enemy.
Re: Re: Re:3
Which is probably why the Alabame Supreme Court recently ruled the way it did in re: in-vitro fertilization. The ruling was not only filled with religious bullshit, it cited Dobbs (i.e., the decision that killed Roe v. Wade) multiple times. If abortion and IVF are declared illegal, how much longer will Republicans wait until they come for birth control? (Aside from any already-existing efforts that aren’t really getting much traction, anyway.)
Female autonomy scares the shit out of insecure men. Both the Republican Party and its primary voting base is full of insecure men. Is it any surprise, then, that the party wants to strip women of their reproductive autonomy—possibly to the point where pregnancy-via-rape would be considered a viable repopulation strategy?
Re: Re: Re:4
The GOP is going for institutional reproductive coercion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577387/
It’s quite literally abuse tactics all the way down with these people.
The First Amendment is only as strong as the Supreme Court. Do you believe our current circle of clerics will uphold it when there’s a juicy queer genocide on the table?
Re:
Sam Alito probably wouldn’t.
Heritage Foundation…
Same folks who came up with Project 2025?
We used to have a naem for thses folks,. “??” minority. It was a good name.
NOW someone figured out that creating a Business behind it, “Institute for Family Studies; “American Principles Project” and NCOSE”, Makes them sound more important, and that they have Many people behind them.
This is a 10% group of people, complaining about Another <10% of people. Which makes them only a distraction.
Blumenthal
78 years old, Held offices in state since 1977. 46 years of service? He could of retired Long ago. Now he is trying to make a Name for himself, before he Quits or dies.
Look up his Controversial 4 year military history.
Re:
The name for these folks is “cryptofascist.”
Re: Re:
Or plain ol’ “fascist”—as with “Neo-Nazi”, you can drop the prefix and still be wholly accurate.
Re: Re: Re:
The prefix is important to indicate you have to look more closely to see the fascism, as opposed to the GOP’s open fascism.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fair point.
I really love how SOME people thinkl
that Pointing fingers will Solve problems.
Passing Blame for something is the best way to HIDE THINGS. Look up Anita Bryant(sp).
99% of these persons Problems are AT HOME. they have nothing to DO with anyone else.
Those Puberty Pills? YOUR PARENTS GIVE their own children, to KEEP them as children.
When I was younger, it was GAY PEOPLE and Black that were the problem. FOR WHAT(as a kid, I didnt know).
WE need a state of WHITE PEOPLE ONLY. Just to ship them there, and SHIP food to them that ONLY White people touched. It wont be much, but at least, when they FIND a problem They will KNOW who did it.
Re:
They can shit their pants and blame a Mexican. If they get their way and fully gut the social security programs that keep their states viable, they’ll still find a way to blame those of us in blue states that are currently paying to keep their shitholes even borderline viable.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that could ever get conservatives to take responsibility for their own disasters.
Dang. Missed the reality again.
Like every anti-LGBT conservative, he crafts his statements to avoid a super important detail – that the vast, vast majority of people who groom children for sexual intent are straight men.
Re:
And that a good chunk of such grooming happens in churches.
Re: Re:
That’s just God’s will.
Have we reached the point where I need a /s on this? It’s honestly hard to keep track of exactly how vile the right wing is getting.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, they did just get a teenager lynched for being queer, after all.
Charlie Kirk is what happens when a turd gains sentience.
“Either way, I’m curious if watching groups like TPUSA freak out about this bill not being censorial enough of LGBTQ content will lead Republicans to get cold feet on supporting this bill.”
If so, I guess we could also expect similar stuff for earn it.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/09/senator-blumenthal-kosa-kids-online-internet-safety-ai-regulation-congress.html
Here’s this fun interview where Richard Blumenthal dances around the point. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
Re:
You can do as you please here but if you really want to defend queer people maybe start with a login so people reading your comments don’t mix them in with all the other anonymous comments. It’s totally your right to be anonymous but doing so means your words will definitely be mixed in with other anonymous speakers because we cannot magically tell who is who. We can make educated guesses but they’re still just guesses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No, he was worried about groomers
You’re the one equating pedophiles with LGBQHUIHDFIUHA+ Kinda homophobic of you to be honest.
And basically, he’s right, that the more prosecutorial discretion rests with not just the executive branch, but the federal executive branch alone, the more we are going to see ideological prosecution, lawfare, and a tiered legal system depending wholly on where the accused stands in comparison to the party in charge.
Hey, are you still censoring any comment that mentioned you by name “Musnick”, or your lack of legal knowledge?
Re:
No. That’s been an ongoing right wing campaign. No one here is buying your alternative facts.
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s_anti-LGBT_movement_in_the_United_States
For those here in good faith (ie not Matty the Revenge Porner)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Do…do you think that the existence of a wiki page somehow means gay groomers aren’t a thing? Cuz they are very obviously a thing.
Care to guess at the incidence rates? There are stats, tho the most recent study on the subject I could find was 1992, presumably since everyone since has been afraid of getting called a homophobe.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
hey matt the revenge porn clown
Re: Re: Re:
I think literally everything you say is said in partisan bad faith.
Re: Re: Re:
And do you think that the existence of gay groomers somehow means straight groomers aren’t a thing? Cuz they are very obviously a thing.
There is zero evidence of LGBT over-representation in actual groomers (as opposed to the RWNJ definition). By banging on about gay groomers you’re effectively minimising and even dismissing the crimes of straight groomers, which is pretty vile.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It appears to be about twice, per capita, maybe a hair less.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
Of course, the point of the bill is to protect children. LGBT groups objected. Much as they object to bills meant to get porn out of schools, as if that somehow is solely targeting them.
Aren’t you supposed to be defending holocaust deniers or something?
Re: Re: Re:3
Because that’s what the name says, right?! I bet you believe the DPRK is a democratic country too.
Just because you sexually-supressed weirdos call it porn, doesn’t mean it actually is.
Maybe you’re all just really gullible…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s porn cuz it’s porn. Like when they showed it on TV they had to blur it out.
Don’t try to change the subject just cuz you got owned on “There is zero evidence of LGBT over-representation in actual groomers”
Re: Re: Re:5
says the clown
Re: Re: Re:5
Except a lot of things those book bans have hit are not porn…
And to my memory, the news you were referring to was a fox clip. Which actually hurts it’s credibility since Fox has been periodically airing anti-lgbt pieces with known false accusations/information since at least as far back as 2021.
You wanna know what was also showed on tv? The footage of a district meeting where religious (they literally invoked god in their speech) bigots were using the law to justify banning And Tango Makes Three.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
…according to librarians who do cute things like remove every book from the library claiming the law applies to them? It’s just not true.
Blatant ad hominem aside, no, it was a press conference, shown on the evening news on LOTS of channels, they all blurred it.
Two swings two misses.
Re: Re: Re:7
You ever hear of the phrase “better safe than sorry”? The whole point of the mass removal of books from classroom and school libraries is to ensure that those in charge of such libraries don’t face any legal liabilities if they leave up a book that, under the law, would net them fines, possibly jail time, and even the loss of their job should a child access a book that the law says they shouldn’t have. It’s the same reasoning behind multiple healthcare facilities in Alabama pausing their IVF treatments after the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that said “frozen embryos are children”: Those facilities don’t want to face any legal liability for what happens to those embryos, especially if the mishandling and subsequent destruction of said embryos could result in someone facing, say, a felony manslaughter charge. I know you want to think that those kinds of laws/rulings are clear-cut and easy to discern, but the reactions I laid out above tell me that the laws/rulings are so broad in scope that an abundance of caution is basically required to steer clear of legal liability (both civil and criminal).
Re: Re: Re:7
I’ve stopped responding to your bad faith nonsense but I thought I would nonetheless thank you for increasing Techdirt’s engagement rate with your low effort content. Your stupidity is always worth a laugh or two.
Re: Re: Re:5
“It’s porn cuz it’s porn.”
I know it when I see it.
No need to explain, just get rid of it like I told you. I’m in charge now!
“Like when they showed it on TV they had to blur it out.”
On Jimmy Kimmel their unnecessary censorship is a real hoot, you should watch it.
Re: Re: Re:5
High school debate champion here folks.
Owned? Hah! Your credibility with presented evidence is extremely low, so I’ll take your singular report of unknown provenance with many grains of salt. The only people publicly claiming over-representation are hateful bigots like you. Meanwhile in the fucking churches…
Re: Re: Re:2
Bratty Matt does carry water for the same political party that often opposes laws abolishing child marriage and takes little-to-no substantive action to address the sexual abuse of children in churches, so you’re not wrong here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You mean the notoriously red wing, republican run states and cities of the Northeast, where the majority of the US catholics are?
That was a sad strawman even for you.
Re: Re: Re:4
says revenge porn enjoyer who makes straw man the clown that revealed that he is a idiot to a spammer matt
Re: Re: Re:4
I hate to break this to you, Matt, but the institution of the Catholic Church…
And I stand by what I said about Republicans, because the party’s alignment with powerful conservative Christians often prevents Republicans from doing anything substantive about child sex abuse in churches (Catholic or otherwise). If you can prove that more Republicans than Democrats are trying to push for reforms that require priests to be mandatory reporters for child abuse claims, I’m all ears.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s pretty bleeding heart liberal actually. Just not socially progressive. And it certainly had the BIGGEST pedophile scandal and it certainly is mostly in blue states, and just generally I think you’re proving that…
…you had no point here.
No, it doesn’t. This is WHOLLY in your own head. It’s just some dumb shit you made up. Because you hate republicans. That’s it.
I do love these hoops you dream up, but that would completely be against the 1st amendment. So like are trying to say if more republicans don’t want to do something unconstitutional then they like pedophiles more? Nevermind yes of course you’re trying to say that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
i like how you keep flaging comments that label you as a revenge porn clown
Re: Re: Re:6
also you keep proving to be a idiot that it doesn’t take much for you to show that you are an idiot
Re: Re: Re:6
Then where, oh where, is the groundswell of support from Republicans for laws that require religious clergy to be mandatory reporters for child sex abuse claims? Because if Republicans wanted to do anything substantive about child sex abuse in churches (Catholic or otherwise), they would be supporting and passing such laws.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Why are you making me repeat myself?
“I do love these hoops you dream up, but that would completely be against the 1st amendment. So like are trying to say if more republicans don’t want to do something unconstitutional then they like pedophiles more? Nevermind yes of course you’re trying to say that.”
Re: Re: Re:8
Because I want to know why you think Republicans are doing anything substantive to address the institutional sex abuse of children in churches (Catholic or otherwise) when, as far as I can tell, they’ll gladly shoot down any attempt to pass laws that would designate clergy as mandatory reporters of child sex abuse claims. (Not to mention how Republicans largely fight attempts to ban child marriages.) I’m not saying outright that Republicans are pedophiles or that Republicans support pedophiles. What I’m saying is that Republicans are so closely connected to conservative Christian groups (and their massive amounts of money) that, more often than not, Republicans will refuse to address child sex abuse scandals in churches with any substantive action all so they can avoid pissing off those groups (and losing access to that money). If I can be proven wrong on this, I would welcome that—but I’m confident that I won’t be.
As for the unconstitutionality of the proposal: We have doctor/patient confidentiality laws and doctors are still required by law to report any claim or evidence of the sexual abuse of a child. If the law can pierce that privilege with a fine needle for the sake of stopping a predator, I see no reason why it can’t similarly pierce the priest/penitent privilege for the same purpose—especially if an institution like the Catholic Church keeps saying that it wants to do whatever it can to stop the sexual abuse of children. Yes, the First Amendment is a concern, but the First Amendment also allows for exceptions when there is a compelling government interest. If you even think of telling me that the government doesn’t have a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual predators, you might want to delete whatever response you were already writing, then go touch some grass for a few days.
Re: Re: Re:9
Matthew Bennet, staunch defender of real child porn on twitter, doth protest too much against imaginary porn in books.
Re: Re: Re:6
So you think an issue that’s affected the Catholic church worldwide is actually a “blue state” problem? Just another partisan arguing point?
Re:
I’m surprised you’re here hawking your shit so soon after it got a teenager lynched in Oklahoma.
Wait, no I’m not. I already knew you’re a vile excuse for a human.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You sound as deranged as Stone.
Anyway, kill yourself fag.
Re: Re: Re:
The juxtaposition of those two sentences is mind-boggling.
Re: Re: Re:2
its matts buddy hyman or a kid that wants attention
Re: Re: Re:2
You expect any less from a bigot?
Re: Re: Re:3
I mean, it’s always present. But they seldom highlight their own hypocrisy quite that concisely.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
are you trying to say no one can argue against a particular agenda because someone of a particular orientation has come to harm within a particular timeframe?
Cuz no, that’s not how that works.
Re: Re: Re:4
Saying “kill yourself fag” is not arguing against a particular agenda, it’s pure, unadulterated bigotry. Or it’s some dumb kid with a budding personality disorder. Maybe both.
Re: Re: Re:4
No. I’m saying Chaya Raichik’s stochastic terrorism helped create an environment where a teenager got lynched. I’m further saying that was foreseeable and inevitable.
Re: Re: Re:5
I want to add that Oklahoma Republicans were, at a minimum, complicit.
Re: Re: Re:6
Scratch that. She and that environment were encouraged by Oklahoma Republicans.
Re: Re: Re:7
But especially Ryan Walters.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Oh? How? Why?
I haven’t seen a lot of details, but it loosely looks like she commited suicide. That happens with bullied kids, gay, straight or whatever.
Re: Re: Re:
One day, sooner or later, you will come to terms with your desire to have manly men dominate you.
Re:
I remember the Carano thread. You went full pants-on-head literally understanding nothing. It seems your takeaway was a new accusation you could project.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Haha, he’s censoring simple misspellings of his last name now.
Anyway, no, I was right about Carano, too, but I was talking about yesterday, where he very conveniently omitted the very clear and airtight BREACH OF CONTRACT claim Santos made (cuz duh, Kimmel breached the contract).
Re: Re: Re:
What contract?
Re: Re: Re:2
Did someone say “contract”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The one yesterday about Santos. I’m sure you can find it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Where in this contract to which you refer, is the text stating exactly what can be done with the resulting product?
Where/how does this ‘contract’ bind the requestor to only use it as approved by the maker of same?
In the absence of any agreed to binding statement(s), I have to assume that the user is allowed to do whatever they please with the product they paid for.
What say you Purveyor of Bullshitism?
Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, yet another word you fail to grasp the meaning of.
Blumenthal is a coward
Mike I’ve been reading your articles about KOSA and I agree with what you covered so far.
I’ve been watching KOSA/EARN IT since last year and I noticed that both were snuck through committees especially when the debt ceiling/default situation was happening last year.
Blumenthal is a opportunistic, cowardly, lying scumbag who uses bills like KOSA to act like he is a savior to kids in his decaying mind but of course in reality he’s willing to work with anyone who supports his anti-internet crusade in disguise of “think of the children”.
Re:
Blumenthal wants to help “normal” children so badly that he’ll help kill the marginalized ones to do it. His commitment to helping straight white cis children is just that deep.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why does the site owner:
1) oppose protecting (by any means necessary) vulnerable children from online predation, and;
2) want these same vulnerable children to be groomed into the cult of gender ideology?
Makes ya wonder!
Re:
why does this dumbass troll
1) supports kids suffering
2) brainwash them into being a mega retard
makes you wonder
Re:
None of those things are true though. The site owner opposes bigotry disguised as protecting children. HTH.
Re:
No, it masks me wonder how someone could be stupid enough to believe either of those things is happening.
Re: Re:
They don’t believe it. Denial is a stage of genocide too.
Re: Re:
https://www.verywellmind.com/protecting-yourself-from-darvo-abusive-behavior-7562730
They don’t believe it. It’s an abuse tactic.
Re:
We can start with you if you’d like.
Re:
Good job conservatives are there to protect kids, eh?What with their prevention of laws banning child marriage, consistent attacks on sex ed that would teach kids what abuse and grooming actually is, the never ending protection of groomers in positions of power within religious institutions… Oh, and the promotion and protection of literal cults who can’t continue to exist without patience forcing their children to attend indoctrination sessions at least once a week and using the machinery of government to ban books and attack the education system to cut off any access hey have to a world view that doesn’t revolve around the teachings of a 1500 year old book.
Re: Re:
as we seen before this is how a country collapses not only is blue states are the only reason conservatives are even still alive amd preventing them from falling apart if they get there way we can see america killing itself very shortly
To be fair, anything short of stringing all us queers up by the neck wasn’t going to be far enough for Charlie Kirk.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“MAGA incel”
You sound like a bigot
Re:
I don’t think he hates you, he just thinks you are a stupid incel that votes for Trump.
Re: Re:
Another one who doesn’t know what a woman is