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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#362

Post by layer8 »

Aerroon wrote: post #330
nikanj wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t care about that. I care about the number of DMs I get from ”superhorni420” offering me her nudes I don’t really see a future where Discord would let an AI company post the kind of 24/7 porn+crypto+scams you get in your email spam folder

But that's already been happening in discord for years.

The parent’s point is that identity verification would stop that.

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

#364

Post by gamblor956 »

FTA: "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."

No, they can't. That's not how jurisdiction works in the U.S. If states could do stuff like that, GOP prosecutors would be charging out-of-state Democratic politicians with made-up-crimes all the time. They're not doing that. It's not because they don't want to; it's because they can't. (And also, the legal justification that would allow them to go after their political enemies like this would allow politically-opposed prosecutors to do the same to them.)

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

#366

Post by raincole »

heavyset_go wrote: post #358
raincole wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people will never actually ban pornography Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay. > If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not ...

You have it backwards, Pornhub preemptively blocked access based on geolocation before the bills even passed.

So Pornhub hates money and traffic?

Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.

Post reply on HN