Live data from Hacker News

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

ellsberg.substack.com

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391
One of the goals in Project 2025 is to make teachers, librarians, etc. that purvey "pornography" into felons, and jail them for a long time. That starts with labeling things as pornography.

Before you know it, anything that mentions LGBTQ+ topics will be labeled as porn.

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

#392

[flagged]

[flagged]

I can guess which, and I implore you to do some reading from actual medical professionals and groups on this.

And if you’re still opposed to it, the solution is regulation - not criminalization.

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

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pornhub did it in protest[1], hope this helps. [1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...

The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.

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

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It doesn't - rather, it attacks the preposition at it's source. Pornography is bad, supposedly, but is it actually? It seems to me we all moved on without actually answering that question. We know it's bad for moral reasons, but moral reasons are stupid and I don't trust them. But is it actually bad - like in the real world, with tangible effects, not made-up ones? I don't know, and it looks like you don't know, and…

Many of these things can’t be “unseen,” and I wish I hadn’t.

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

#396
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that age verification via ID submission online and the subsequent storage of IDs are separate issues.

How could they be separate issues when the submission of an ID image obviously enables both the subsequent storage of the ID and also the presentment of the ID to others. We know that very few organizations are capable of effectively controlling confidential information that they're legally bound to keep confidential. Requiring things that are going to lead to large stores of ID images is asking for trouble. When you…

Because they are. You do not have to store the ID for verification: storage it’s just one way to implement such a system.

I agree with you that systems that store those IDs are ticking bombs.

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

#397

Hopefully someone kept a snapshot of the country's configs before this year began. I feel like we're going to need it. This is ludicrous - as so much is lately.

Unfortunately, the S3 bucket we use to host the backups is gone... the compliance department complained about it, but now they're gone, too...

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

#398

"Party of free speech," my ass.

I worry that young people across the political spectrum increasingly no longer see free speech as a foundational value. Both sides pay lip service and deploy it strategically but are quick to sacrifice it when it conflicts with other values and goals. The ACLU won our expansive free speech protections defending the KKK in the 1950s. But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social pro…

> But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting.

Quite the opposite. I stopped donating to the ACLU after a few years of the last trump administration because I could no longer stomach it given the clear direction trumpism is taking the country. I still support the mission ideologically but can't back it up with my money. Seeing trump this time around I'm glad I haven't wasted the money - the constitution is dead.

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

#399

[flagged]

These people will never actually ban pornography, That's what I used to say about Roe v. Wade. "They'll never give up that wedge issue."

They never banned abortions for themselves, just made it more difficult to get if you’re not getting an “acceptable” one (i.e. have the money to go where it’s legal or have a private family doctor who can make Bastard Fetus go bye-bye).

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

#400
post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

I would say the best option, if there absolutely must be age verification etc., would be to have a registry of sites that comply with all regulations and by default devices shouldn't access sites off that list. Basically a giant allolist for verified good sites. The internet is already effectively shrunk to less than a dozen sites for regular users, so this won't impact them, and the rest of us can have real free speech and unregulated internet back by switching DNS servers or some similar trivial change.

Or we move everything not meant for the sanitised internet to TOR hidden services.

Post reply on HN