Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by NPC82 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:10 PM UTC

beejiu wrote: post #381

afavour wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment would be well served by adding some reasons why.

Because youths don't have developed critical thinking skills and HRT is an invasive medical treatment!?

Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.

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

#432

Post by tialaramex » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:10 PM UTC

frogperson wrote: post #369

stego-tech wrote: post #310

[flagged]

[flagged]

Tenets.

A tenant is somebody who has a lease, for example to an apartment or one of those big metal sheds for a supermarket, and by analogy, customers of something like Microsoft's "Entra ID" (what was "Azure Active Directory" at least the new name is less confusing)

A tenet is a belief or principle that you believe in absolutely, I think we'd say that this "protects but does not bind / binds but does not protect" idea isn't a tenet of Fascism but instead an observable trait.

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

#433

Post by Nasrudith » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:10 PM UTC

phendrenad2 wrote: post #353

Same as it ever was. The government has been congenitally unable to strike a rational balance between free speech vs indecency statutes. "I know it when I see it" has been a meme since 1964 when it was written by the Supreme Court. In handing control of that balance over to the states, the federal government is just giving up. But it won't work. The issue still needs to be resolved. We're going to see many, many, man…

That is because the false balance is complete bullshit. Free speech means free speech. Obscenity is just special pleading "but it is icky!". The same thing has been happening for centuries. They came across a good idea as a foundational principle and the dumb fuckers wearing dresses we call judges refuse to see it. They then prove that they are all lawyers by constructing elaborate rationalizations. They also did the same thing to the Fourteenth ammendment's equal protection under the law working as grounds barring corruption and injustice.

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

#434

Post by heavyset_go » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:11 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #17

> 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. > It's unlikely the…

> especially if the judge finds the text in question particularly or personally offensive.

Pro-censorship advocates will venue shop to find a sympathetic court

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

#435

Post by kayodelycaon » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:11 PM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #250

[flagged]

You’re forgetting the entire history of Europe and the Catholic church.

We don’t even come close to the bullshit that happened in the past.

Not that it makes the present any better.

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

#436

Post by Nasrudith » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:12 PM UTC

tiahura wrote: post #331

soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

Two hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence would suggest there has never been a right to obscenity.

Two-hundred and fifty years of piwertripping lawyers with their heads up their own asses, ignoring the plain text of the constitution.

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

#437

Post by kennywinker » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:12 PM UTC

giingyui wrote: post #416

kennywinker wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.

Made in good faith. And HRT is very rarely given to minors. The standard of care is puberty blockers until their 18.

Question about your good faith:

Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty

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

#438

Post by DonHopkins » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:13 PM UTC

tolerance wrote: post #227

_bent wrote: post #149

We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now. There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok. But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences. Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of th…

[flagged]

I bet they would have found cakefarts.com hilarious! At least it delivered what the url promised, unlike expertsexchange.com, penisland.com, and therapistfinder.com.

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

#439

Post by cocacola1 » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:14 PM UTC

chgs wrote: post #134

soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

If the Supreme Court agrees they are constitutional then they clearly are constitutional, unless you think the constitution doesn’t apply

Not really. The Supreme Court believes some rulings to be wrong the day they were decided:

> “The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: *Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided*, has been overruled in the court of history, and to be clear ‘has no place in law under the Constitution,’” Roberts said, quoting Justice Jackson’s 1944 dissent.

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

#440

Post by kennywinker » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:14 PM UTC

beejiu wrote: post #419

kennywinker wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills. Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.

I mean at least you’re consistent - even if you want to ban diabetics from chatting about their care online.