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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by Fraterkes »

landl0rd wrote: post #255
const_cast wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, some of them are. More evangelicals than my crowd. Morality bears directly on what we consider to be a just society, so I don’t care if you don’t care. You’re broadening the scope beyond this particular issue, where I’m guessing I agree with you. It’s not virtuous to act right because the state makes you, but the question of what we require and preclude is defined by our moral frameworks at some level. I’m not su…

Come one man, it would be trivial for me to credibly argue that your religion has given scores of young men an absolutely dysfunctional relation to sexuality, woman, their own body, etc. Anyone could make that case as easily as your case about pornography (arguably with more proof in my case). Should we legislate both the same way?

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

#312

Post by const_cast »

tolerance wrote: post #282
const_cast wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I mean by "real" is real-world, tangible. If I drive a car without a seatbelt, that has real-world effects. I can get ejected and die, as well as hurting other people. But pornography doesn't split my skull. It doesn't crush my fingers. It doesn't make me poorer. It doesn't make me sicker. It doesn't hurt me physically, or financially, or even socially.

I know, or at least I figured that's what you meant. I'm not a proponent of the discipline per say, and maybe because of this, my impression that the entire field of psychology is meant to partially address the real-word, tangible effects of things that do not cause apparent physical harm is naive. If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I a…

> Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews?

To answer this, it's because of how modern societies view rights. Namely, you can do whatever you want, until we can prove it's to a detriment to other people. Before doing something, we need not prove it is good.

On an individual level, it is a very good idea to have some guarantee something is good before we do it. But on a societal level, we don't do this, and for good reason. Before we censor or restrict, we must assure we have good reasons for doing so.

> If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment.

I might agree, but sexuality and sex is very complex.

I can argue that it's not that simple, and sex exists beyond the bounds of what you do - it's part of who you are, and not much in your control.

For example, I am a homosexual, I'm gay. Naturally my sex involves anal intercourse with other men. To many, this is disgusting. Gross, unsanitary, distasteful.

My life would certainly be easier if I did not have this affliction, but simultaneously I cannot control it. I've tried, as has every gay man or boy at some point in their lives. And, I do not know what has caused it. If I never viewed pornography, ever, I am 100% confident I would still be gay.

I do not know how it works for heterosexuals, but I imagine, to some degree, their sexual proclivities are, too, not under their control. I don't think removing pornography would remove those sexual proclivities.

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

#313

Post by noosphr »

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…

If you need an id to buy porn irl why wouldn't you need one to buy it online?

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

#314

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

aaaja wrote: post #267
const_cast wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is already blocked by age. In order to order internet service, you must be an adult, and you must prove it by showing papers, such as residence and pay stubs. Once the service or good is sold, all bets are off. The clerk at the corner store might ask for your ID to buy alcohol, yes. But they do not follow you home to ensure you don't give wine to your kid. And, if they did, would you be comfortable with…

The internet is not blocked by age. Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it. Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched? Age-restricted websites are no different. You can comply with the access requirement, or refrain from using the service. It's your freedom of cho…

Many public WiFi hotspots have content filters. Kids are not going to be seeing porn at the library.

The issue here is there's a difference between a mainstream service, like a cinema, and a tiny author website which probably gets a few hundred hits a months at most.

And the ultimate ideological aim is to take all erotica offline. Especially any kind of queer erotica.

This is using ID issues for ideological censorship, not trying to set up an ID system to streamline access to adult material by adult consumers.

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

#315

Post by tremon »

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.

Are you saying that the early web only existed in the USA? I did not witness a growth in mass shootings here in Europe from that time. Those things did not happen until Web 2.0.

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

#316

Post by JumpCrisscross »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #275
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…

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.

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

#317

Post by windowshopping »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #275
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…

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

Anti-fallacitical?

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

#318

Post by hooverd »

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.

Twitter is worse than 4chan now, at least 4chan is moderated.

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

#320

Post by const_cast »

aaaja wrote: post #267
const_cast wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is already blocked by age. In order to order internet service, you must be an adult, and you must prove it by showing papers, such as residence and pay stubs. Once the service or good is sold, all bets are off. The clerk at the corner store might ask for your ID to buy alcohol, yes. But they do not follow you home to ensure you don't give wine to your kid. And, if they did, would you be comfortable with…

The internet is not blocked by age. Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it. Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched? Age-restricted websites are no different. You can comply with the access requirement, or refrain from using the service. It's your freedom of cho…

There are infinite levels of privacy.

> Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched?

For me, no. For others, yes.

But this is a different degree of privacy to what we're talking about. It's not the same, and you cannot make the jump for free.

What I mean is, just because I am okay with this degree of privacy violation, does not mean I consent to all privacy violations which may ever exist. Again, you might be fine with an R-rated movie - but you, yourself, would not be fine with a store clerk living at your house to ensure you don't give kids alcohol. So you, yourself, understand and live by the principle.

> Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it.

Similarly, any child living in my house can access my scotch.

It is up to me, the person who purchased the good or service, to ensure that doesn't happen. It is not up to a third-party like the store clerk. If I am a business, it is then up to me that the internet I provide is adequately censored. Which is what happens in practice.

Post reply on HN