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)?
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
171–180 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#172We'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…
>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…
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#174Earlier 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).
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#175[flagged]
It received 200+ comments at the time it happened... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397799
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.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#176Earlier 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)?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#177Earlier 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...
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
#178Earlier 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.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#179Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#180On a sociological level: good. I personally believe that easy-access porn has been detrimental to society.