Live data from Hacker News

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

ellsberg.substack.com

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

In some states stores are required to scan IDs. I'd be surprised if e.g. Kroger weren't storing that information. All of these porn laws I've read at least ban any storage. As far as I know digital ID standards are also at least designed to allow only sharing "over18" without other identifying information.

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

#172
post #149

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 th…

Content restrictions should just be an option with the ISP: to make the entire modem/phone disable adult content and/or require age verification. This, I would disable (presuming `on` by default).

>2 girls 1 cup

I still remember showing that to curious ladies in grad school (who'd heard about it); some of my favorite reaction footage.

>10 years old

My generation's equivalent was lemonparty.com

=>O<=

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

#173

> 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…

IANAL, but it seems like things are already moving in this direction. For example, FL has a similar state law regarding pornography, and the response from many porn sites has been to comply or block FL IPs rather than fight it up to the supreme court. I guess someone will do it eventually, but I suspect there is an assumption that they'd be wasting their time and money to do so.

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of the two parties is very much in favor of free speech. The left has cancel culture and policing pronouns while the right has blocking books with gay characters and age verification laws.

“Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).

Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.

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

#175
post #3

[flagged]

It received 200+ comments at the time it happened... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397799

Exposure != Accumulated comments, especially if you aren't counting distinct authors.

Dig a little deeper, and you'll see that particular submission ("US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law") was visible on the front page for barely five minutes [0] before something abruptly exiled it to to the end of the second page and a slide into obscurity.

In contrast, I randomly picked something from several pages down today that which looks bland with triple-digit comments, and got "A Typology of Candianisms." Turns out that has even more comments (327!) and was visible on the front page for about twenty hours [1].

Quite a difference, isn't it? I'm not against the idea that HN needs to guard its content-mix, but we should not live in denial about it happening.

[0] https://hnrankings.info/44397799/

[1] https://hnrankings.info/44515101/

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

It seems to me that age verification via ID submission online and the subsequent storage of IDs are separate issues.

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

#177
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this covered by the "full faith and credit" clause? [0] [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/AL...

Technically anything is possible with the Calvinball Supreme Court, but states can choose not to extradite their citizens. E.g. NY has a shield law for abortion doctors. https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/police-departments...

This feels helpful, but puts a big burden on the person targeted. I live in California; let's say I run afoul of this Tennessee law and am criminally prosecuted.

California decides this is bullshit and won't extradite me to Tennessee. Great. The article mentions that 20-odd states are implementing similar laws (though most offer only civil penalties, not criminal). Let's say I want to visit friends in New York. I get on a plane, and the plane flies over one of those other states with shitty laws. They've decided to help Tennessee with their shitty-law enforcement, see that my name is on a passenger list of a flight crossing that state's airspace, and they require my plane divert to a local airport so they can arrest me.

Ok, maybe states can't do that? But I still have to be careful how I fly; I have to only take direct flights, or be very careful as to which connecting airports I allow in my itineraries. I have to hope that all my flights go smoothly, and that my flights never have issues that require them to divert to an airport in a state with shitty laws.

This still sucks for people who don't have to live in states with these garbage laws.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).

Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.

The government had no capacity to “order” Twitter to do this, in stark contrast to this law.

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

#179
Is there anything we can actually do to combat this? Im short of ideas, tho the 33% rule can be potentially worked around by generating loads of fake content similar to a previous poster who generates fake content for scrapers to eat Im in the UK and they recently passed a similar law banning any explicit _imagery_, which I already thought was bad but the land of freedom beats us out again, the literally surveillance state, at least that's that's enforced top down by ofcom instead of an army of injury lawyers so it works at ofcom's speed
Post reply on HN