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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by djeastm »

xp84 wrote: 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…

RE Point 1. All it takes is one of those other peers' parents to allow them to view pornography and then that kid just becomes the porn-distributor for the school, just like some kids in my day passed around porno mags. In essence, nothing changes for the kids, but every single adult is at best inconvenienced and at worst at risk of government invasion of their privacy. Not worth doing, imo.

RE Point 2. They could just use a whitelist instead of a blacklist/filter. They exist already, after all. Fill it up with sites showing the wholesome version of the world you want your child exposed to and they can only visit those places.

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

#422

Post by NikolaNovak »

frogperson wrote: post #369
stego-tech wrote: post #310

[flagged]

[flagged]

Thank you for that, I've been looking for a decent pre-AI/Non-wikipedia summary like that. Unsurprisingly but depressingly, at least 13 out of 14 points are a perfect match.

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

#424

Post by kayodelycaon »

dyauspitr wrote: post #198
ViktorRay wrote: post #196

This article is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to obscene sexual material. It doesn’t apply to sex scenes within artistic works or sexual content in general. There’s a test used to determine whether sexual material is considered pornographic. It’s known as the “I know it when I see it” test. More info on this test here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it More specifically here…

The article sounds very correct. Anything can be perceived as “obscene” especially when you leave that interpretation open to any particular group.

A man in drag is considered obscene by some people.

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

#425

Post by anondude24 »

drak0n1c wrote: post #371
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…

Thinking about client vs server, wouldn't it be even less wide-ranging, less costly to enforce, and more appropriately targeted if such mandates are one-time and on the client side - only on device manufacturers and OEM-shipped OS? Suppose new mass market devices are defaulted to parental controls on, until unlocked by an adult at point-of-sale or afterwards through a form of validation? The KYC of who unlocked it co…

Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders?

> There should be a clear exemption threshold for low volume indie products, build your own PC, and open source self-install like Linux - since the purpose is to protect ignorant/apathetic consumers.

Then everyone will just follow a YouTube tutorial to reinstall their operating system and bypass restrictions. There were TikTok videos teaching kids how to steal cars, would there not be easy to follow instructions to bypass whatever client side filtering is implemented?

I get where you're coming from, but mandated client side filtering has been tried and has been ridiculed as a complete failure every time. Attempts have been made to market and provide filtering products to parents with little effect, with them either being easy to bypass or difficult to use.

It's actually kind of interesting to see the people who were fighting against client side filtering are now advocating for it, because server side restrictions are the next logical step.

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

#427

Post by kennywinker »

lelanthran wrote: post #407
afavour wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.

You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.

Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available?

The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will

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

#428

Post by raincole »

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…

> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids.

I mean, they are. But I've never seen a similar reaction on HN or any forum when social media require age verification. Actually, I think most HN users would cheer if the government required Facebook to only allow users over 18.

I feel the general opinion about something on the internet basically comes down to this simple rule: !(do American Christians want that thing?), no matter what that thing is.

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

#429

Post by spacechild1 »

LocalH wrote: post #322
spacechild1 wrote: post #169

That Tennessee law is particularly crazy: > (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body Naked bodies do not harm anyone . This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.

Interestingly (and I suppose fairly?) the law doesn't seem to make a distinction between male and female nipples. So an image of a shirtless man violates this just as much as an image of a shirtless woman.

I also noticed that! Certainly speaks of the intelligence of the people who write these laws :)

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

#430

Post by kennywinker »

cryptoegorophy wrote: post #426
kennywinker wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Given how many trans kids commit suicide when prevented from transitioning, i’d say both save lives. And that’s why i’m ok with it. Because going on puberty blockers until you’re 18 seems like a very non-invasive way to thread the needle of patient care for minors
Post reply on HN