Why do candidates continue to be drawn to the prospect of restricting speech here like moths to a flame, particularly after all the drama (and yes, impeachments) that IG’s incessant attempts to censor content he didn’t like caused not that long ago?
The “erotic content” ban might be popular among active candidates, but that doesn’t mean it has been fully thought through, or that it is constitutional, or that it carries the overwhelming supermajority support that would be needed to rewrite the constitution. Any so-called “erotic content” ban will have to be distilled to a concrete proposal, then fully argued in Congress, and then assuming it even passes, fully litigated in the inevitable constitutional challenge(s).
As it is, The Constitution, Art. 14, Sec. 1 creates a strong presumption here in favor of free speech for all kinds of messages and content within the TOS. I_P has always been and should always be a freewheeling stream with memers of all ages and political orientations, just like Imgflip itself. Which is exactly the reason for the — tah-da-da-daaaah — NSFW button.
All that said, a random uncaptioned image of a lightly-clothed woman having fun in the sun doesn’t meet I_P criteria for relevance and could already be rightly unfeatured as spam. However, a visually similar meme that conveys a stream-relevant statement or joke ought to be featured so long as marked NSFW.
If you don’t like it, cry about it. Seriously. Heck, I cry about the dumb crap I see posted here all the time. Not actually, but in the online-mockery metaphorical “cry about it” sense, yes it almost physically pains me whoever I hear it suggested (for instance) that Putin and Zelensky are not actually real, are both being played by actors, and that the entire Ukraine War is just a psy-op to manipulate little old me sitting in the middle of North America.
I put up with galaxy-brain takes like that constantly, as I concede it is one’s free speech right here.
