We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2129
Description[?]:
| I see no reason that government resources should be wasted on prosecuting sexual indecency laws. It is a waste of valuable money that serves no real purpose. If people care, they'll deal with it themselves. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The time at which sexually explicit content may be shown on broadcast television (if allowed).
Old value:: Sexually explicit content may only be shown during hours that very few children watch. Nudity may be shown all day long.
Current: Sexually explicit content or nudity may only be shown during hours that very few children watch television
Proposed: Sexually explicit content may be shown all day long.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:49:53, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | Are you really this perverted? So small children should expect to play in their nearest park, and see a group of men having anal sex next to the swings? Should a child turn on the tele and be able to witness hardcore pornography? An adult isn't always going to be there to protect the child, and you will simply turn parks and public toilets, as well as the tv, into no-go areas for normal unperverted people. |
| Date | 14:42:57, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | The AAP suspects this has little to do with the actual morality of the PCP - whom we are sure are fine, upstanding moral fellows - and much more to do with raising political capital. But then, maybe the AAP are just politically cynical? |
| Date | 07:27:47, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | AAP: You're almost right. Actually it's more like we're uncaring on morality. Morality doesn't bother us. Court costs and lost money to the media do, however. So do regulations that don't eventually lead to gained profit The way we see it, the private sector will provide what people want. Concerned parents will buy cheap blockers to block channels that show smut. Concerned viewers will criticize media channels that show smut, causing them to change or lose viewers. Eventually, the market will balance itself into the form demanded by the dominant culture. We do not have the moral authority to criticize the dominant culture. As for obscene public acts, the same things that happen with the media cannot happen there, so that's a point that will stand better. I'll remove that from the bill. |
| Date | 10:10:10, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | Thankyou for cooperating in this manner, however we are unsure as to whether we want pornography to be available easily. Pornography is addictive and in many ways is worse than narcotic substances, it can effect the mind of young men, either warping them or reducing their concentration in more educational subjects. We still feel porn should not be available until after a certain time, thus giving men who are addicted to it the chance to work during the day, rather than bumming around at home gtting their fix. |
| Date | 11:47:11, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | Like I said, dominant culture. How many men would be allowed to bum around at home watching porn by their wives? Almost none. Men who wish to get married or even to so much as touch real females would be very careful not to get too addicted. Sure young men might get addicted, but then they either mature - or live lonely. |
| Date | 11:49:03, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | (OOC - Amusing thought. Imagine if anything at all could be shown on television but all signs of affection were banned in public. What kind of screwed up society would that make?) |
| Date | 14:15:35, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | Fight perversity, fight the xploitation of women. Women are our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, do not degrade them in this manner. |
| Date | 16:17:59, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | Who's to say that none of this will be males being shown off? I would wager that at least one channel if not more appears attempting to appeal to women viewers. |
| Date | 17:32:30, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | Yes there probably will, but the simple fact is that due to male physcology, porn appeals far more to and is most commonly made for, heterosexual males. |
| Date | 19:46:19, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | While the AAP are normally all about permissiveness, we already allow sexual acts beyond a certain watershed on broadcast television, and have NO sexual censorship on subscription channels. The AAP is pretty happy with that balance. |
| Date | 20:42:32, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Repeal of Sexual Indecency Laws |
| Message | The LPE is split on this matter, but after some thought and discussion we have decided to follow the lead of the AAP, not because we fear for the moral stability or our young men or want to protect the women depicted, as both of these are responsible adults and that is their choice, but because we fear that children may be traumatised by continual exposure to sexually explicit tv. (the argument that the market will regulate can only be carried so far - if something is legal and there is an audience for it there will always be those channels that will show it.) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 196 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 304 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life fictional references (eg. Gandalf, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker). |
| Random quote: "A dictatorship is a country where they have taken the politics out of politics." - Sam Himmell |