Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

ellsberg.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#141

Post by watwut »

dmix wrote: post #119
CPLX wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did widespread adoption of the libertarian techno-utopianism of the early web work out for society as a whole?

It existed only on the edges, usually in softer pragmatic forms, and stopped a lot of bad ideas as a pressure group. Characterizing the entire development of software and the internet in 90s-2000s as based on libertarian techno-utopinanism is largely manufactured narrative though. One I keep seeing pop up more and more. Largely by people trying to push poorly though out authoritarian gov-controlled internet by spinni…

I got us 4chan and 8chan. It got us mass shootings and endless "they are just trolling, they are just teenagers, they are just ironic" chorus constantly bad faith defending the far right.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#142

Post by TimorousBestie »

kfajdsl wrote: post #109
root_axis wrote: post #17

> In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site. > It's unlikely the…

If an state AG tries to prosecute an entity that has no ties to the state other than content being passively accessible, that's probably another supreme court case if it doesn't get immediately decided in favor of the defendant in the lower courts. You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in. If Texas wants to block content from enti…

> You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in.

It’s true, it would cause a great deal of chaos if suddenly every person and business had to comply with fifty-plus different and sometimes contradictory state laws.

But it seems like that’s where we’re headed?

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#145

Post by trhway »

api wrote: post #41
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device. I run a pi-hole that blocks ads and porn, but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people. There are some commercial products but they are expensive and also take time and at least a little tech ability to set up. … and of course…

>Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device.

May be such inept people who don't care that much about their kids as to setup parent control shouldn't have kids in the first place? Why we all should take a hit to our rights/business/etc. just because of such careless and irresponsible parents?

Your kids is your personal responsibility. It the same story again and again - why can't these conservative people own their personal responsibilities without hoisting its costs onto the others?

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#146

Post by watwut »

perth wrote: post #115
xp84 wrote: post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

Nitpick: currently in the US, most public libraries do not regulate anyone, of any age, from reading “adult” books.

They wont allow minors to take out porn. Simply, they wont and it would be illegal for them.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#147

Post by damontal »

soulofmischief wrote: post #30
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

This goes against the very ethos of the early web. We should not be normalizing any form of this extreme moral overreach.

The early web died when everything went behind the walled gardens.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#148

Post by probably_wrong »

trhway wrote: post #124
antonymoose wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect a liquor store to check ID, why not a porn store?

Interesting, why did you give up your right to buy liquor anonymously? And you also seem to be willing to give up your right to anonymous porn. Why?

> why did you give up your right to buy liquor anonymously?

That's not entirely true - once you look old enough most places will stop asking for ID.

As for why: because there is (or at least, was) no other system to identify whether someone is underage and, by extension, more likely to underestimate the consequences of their actions, make worse choices under the effect of alcohol, and suffer its effects more strongly. Same reason why the legal system makes a difference between minors and adults.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#149

Post by _bent »

We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now.

There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok.

But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences.

Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of the world if he did.

It's good that we have content recommendations. But we shouldn't try to actually enforce them.

Again: with all the options kids have had for accessing porn online in the last couple of decades, if it was actually THAT bad, we'd be having an epidemic. Yet we don't. The kids are alright

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#150

Post by Ylpertnodi »

antonymoose wrote: post #112
Sharlin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I expect a liquor store to check ID, why not a porn store?

Do booze shops in the US store peoples id's after they've flashed them (pun intended)?
Post reply on HN