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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by aaaja »

const_cast wrote: post #225
aaaja wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a barrier put in place so that children are less likely to casually access these sites while they're browsing around. As an adult, no-one is forcing you to view pornographic websites. If you don't want to provide your ID as per these laws, simply refrain from viewing. It really is that straightforward a choice.

Right, so you're admitting what we already know to be true: it's censorship. Now, I can get behind some censorship if it's for very good reasons. As soon as it's for moralistic reasons, you've lost me. This is a morality law. Morality laws are bad, period. We need real, concrete reasons for blocking content and enforcing censorship - not morality. Why not? Because morals change from person to person and throughout hi…

Proving one's age is required for many other activities that are considered unsuitable for children, such as purchasing alcohol and drugs, and watching age-restricted films in the cinema.

Of course this means that any adult, when challenged, who refuses to show ID as proof of age, will be denied service. But again that refusal is their choice. They voluntarily refrained from complying with the access requirements.

How is this substantially different to an adult refusing to show ID to access an age-restricted website?

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

#242

Post by opello »

gxs wrote: post #24
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…

There was a thread on reddit asking the other day what about the modern world bothers you the most I actually considered this question and after thinking about it, despite everything going on, I think it boils down to lack of privacy as my biggest gripe in the modern world It’s such a tough concept to explain to the if you don’t have anything to hide crowd, but if someone wants to disappear, I don’t care if for good…

Either so few people appreciate the freedom that privacy confers or the perceived conveniences for trading it away are too compelling because of just how little society has done to protect privacy.

I only imagine it changing after a significant cultural change in which the economic value is not held as higher than the value of privacy, but would be delighted to be wrong in this regard.

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

#243

Post by const_cast »

landl0rd wrote: post #207

> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a lo…

You might not be pushing for it, but certainly your fellow conservative Christians are.

The problem with moralistic thinking is that it's stupid and it blows up, and we've known this for hundreds of years. What you view as moral means fuck-all. I don't particularly care if you think something is degenerate, and in fact by using a term like degenerate I respect you less as a person.

So when morals are used as the sole reason to justify law, we have a problem. Morals were used to justify slavery. To justify a lack of suffrage. To justify legal domestic abuse.

What's changed since then? Time. The passage of time. But time does not stop. Where will we be in 10 years, or 20? Progressing forward, ideally, but that's not a guarantee. We're laying the ground work for abuse.

For a large part of the American constituency, anything containing homosexuals is degenerate pornography. Right now. So if "it's pornography" is our justification, we have a problem.

I think we agree that said laws are bad, but why they're bad matters. The wider-scale implication is that moralistic law making is bad. Listening to Christians and having them come up with laws based on their personal beliefs is bad. Appealing to the American purity culture is bad. This is all ripe for abuse.

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

#244

Post by overfeed »

mindslight wrote: post #161
watwut wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"arrived" and "swinging back"? You sound like an optimist; the dark-enlightenment Neo-Reactionary folk behind this are only just getting started.

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

#245

Post by kergonath »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #128
olddustytrail wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally what EU privacy laws are about and guess what... Anti government folk from the USA hated them and decided they were government overreach.

Please, the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really. Privacy from companies maybe, privacy from governments and cops, certainly not.

> the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really.

The EU is not a monolith. There are many people pushing in many different directions. Sometimes the result is good, sometimes less so.

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

#246

Post by landl0rd »

rstat1 wrote: post #231
landl0rd wrote: post #207

> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a lo…

What people do in their private time is none of anyone's business. Period. Especially the government.

Did something I wrote read like I disagreed with this? What children do in their private time is their parents’ business. What children do can sometimes be the business of the state; there’s tons of precedent for it acting in loco parentis. I just don’t find this to be the best solution.

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

#248

Post by ivan_gammel »

Eavolution wrote: post #204
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…

I am never providing my ID to anyone who can store it indefinitely. I am an adult and have no problem showing it in a shop if required as it isn't stored. Unless it can be proven it wont be stored (i.e. the bytes are never sent from my laptop) I will not provide it.

Your ID is effectively stored by the issuer indefinitely. What’s the difference between one and two entities? What’s the difference between two and a hundred?
Post reply on HN