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

Post by kelnos » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 8:35 PM UTC

dyauspitr wrote: post #189

_Algernon_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old? Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given wh…

Because just like the argument with social media in my opinion it’s better to have governmental regulation on these things so millions of households don’t have to have the same argument with their kids and kids not on social media platforms don’t get left out of a significant percentage of teenage life effectively socially stunting them.

Post by M95D » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 8:35 PM UTC

Post by donatj » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 8:37 PM UTC

tyre wrote: post #170

TimorousBestie wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 by rstat1 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 8:38 PM UTC

lowkey_ wrote: post #193

trhway wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Not the parent commenter, but they just said that most parents don't have the technical aptitude to do so. Implying that they don't care about their kids, or shouldn't have kids as a result, is a pretty awful thing to say.

Post by kfajdsl » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 8:38 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #173

kfajdsl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.