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

Post by arrosenberg » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 9:42 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #184

arrosenberg wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes less than 5 minutes to set up NextDNS with the same functionality and it costs $2 a month for unlimited DNS calls. If you download the app it absolutely can police cellular. If these legislators cared about keeping kids safe, they’d be focused on getting them off social media, not stopping adults from exercising free speech.

Comcast’s Xfinity service doesn’t let you change DNS in their router and blocks queries to other DNS providers if you are using their router.

Post by majormajor » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 9:45 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #164

Sharlin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 Chris…

Post by soulofmischief » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 9:49 PM UTC

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.

Post by tiahura » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 9:51 PM UTC

op00to wrote: post #274

tiahura wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "chilling effect" argument here is pretty weak. You're basically saying that because some small publishers might get confused about legal requirements, the whole system is unconstitutional. That's not how First Amendment analysis works. Courts don't strike down laws just because some people might overreact to them. If this really created such massive chilling effects, we'd see data showing widespread site shutdow…

Chilling effects are settled doctrine, not hand-waving. SCOTUS struck the CDA (Reno v. ACLU, 1997) and COPA (Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2004) precisely because vague “indecent/harmful” standards plus stiff penalties make rational speakers self-censor. Courts don’t wait for carnage. The predictable chill itself is the constitutional flaw. We already have hard evidence of chill. Pornhub, one of the few players with the budget t…

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 9:54 PM UTC

IAmGraydon wrote: post #210

danaris wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But there won't be. Because the ultimate purpose of laws like this isn't really to prevent minors from accessing porn. Ultimately, it's to 1) outlaw porn for everyone , because it's "sinful", and 2) outlaw disc…

You’re getting downvoted, likely because the people downvoting you dont realize that Project 2025 explicitly calls for the complete outlawing of pornography and the imprisonment of anyone who produces it. They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.