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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by mindslight »

watwut wrote: post #141
dmix wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So now that we've arrived at the far right, it's time to stop decentralized dissent and prevent the pendulum from swinging back? This seems like a terrible idea.

And personally I'd say mass shootings are primarily encouraged by corporate mass media (including social media) glorifying the events and the shooters, rather than anonymous message board speech.

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

#162

Post by tines »

baq wrote: post #129
nikanj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And honestly, with the advent of AI spam everywhere, I'd be quite happy to visit a version of the internet where everyone is a certified real person

No idea why you’re getting downvoted when there’s a slow but unstoppable migration of everything into discord or other walled, somewhat LLM-proof gardens.

Walled gardens are only LLM-proof until some AI company makes an offer for the data.

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

#164

Post by kelnos »

Sharlin wrote: post #85
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…

[flagged]

At this point I think accusing conservatives of hypocrisy is blase and yesterday's news.

Of course conservatives are hypocrites. All they care about are their end goals, and they will say and do whatever they need to say and do in order to achieve them.

One of those goals involves enshrining Christian values into law. Christian values themselves are often hypocritical and contradictory. And inconsistent: ask 10 Christians to weigh in on a thorny moral issue and you'll get 15 different answers.

And on top of that, the conservatives in power have a fetish for using those power structures to enrich themselves and their cronies, under the guise of "small government" and "free markets".

I don't think exposing conservative hypocrisy is a winning or useful strategy anymore. Conservatives are masters at cognitive dissonance, and at hand-waving away inconsistencies in their views, or the very real, very negative consequences of their policy plans. I'm not sure what the right strategy is, though. And perhaps this is why liberals fail to win hearts and minds when it matters.

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

#165

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

watwut wrote: post #146
perth wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What public libraries have porn?

Or is it the pearl clutching where a novel with a same-sex kiss is smut? What about all of the graphic acts that happen in the Bible?

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

#166

Post by tyre »

chgs wrote: post #134
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

If the Supreme Court agrees they are constitutional then they clearly are constitutional, unless you think the constitution doesn’t apply

The Supreme Court considered internment camps and segregation constitutional, until it didn’t.

There are also people who disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretations. Including members of the Supreme Court! Both current (dissents) and not (overturning past rulings.)

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

#167

Post by aaronmdjones »

watwut wrote: post #146
perth wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the point they were making is that a child can walk into a library, pick up any book, and open it. All without any adults being in the loop. They can do that today.

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

#168

Post by kelnos »

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…

> parents that are too busy

If you are too busy to parent, then you shouldn't be one in the first place.

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

#169

Post by spacechild1 »

That Tennessee law is particularly crazy:

> (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body

Naked bodies do not harm anyone. This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.

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

#170

Post by tyre »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #108
ttul wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP under Trump has considerably changed from the GOP under Bush. There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. Perhaps a shift might be coming with the next economic downturn, which seems inevitable given the risk-off investment climate across most industries stemming from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable trade and economic policy. Things don’t look bad just yet, but it takes a while for…

> There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. There is, they just don’t like it for aesthetic and/or historical reasons. The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush. If the centrists and moderate conservatives could make common cause, they would easily shut out both the far left and far ri…

> it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings

These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing. They aren’t extremists. They are the party views.

Post reply on HN