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

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

lowkey_ wrote: post #192

api wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device. I run a pi-hole that blocks ads and porn, but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people. There are some commercial products but they are expensive and also take time and at least a little tech ability to set up. … and of course…

Sorry you're experiencing a bunch of downvotes over a counterpoint from your own experience. Even though I could predict what side HN would stand on any sort of internet freedom post, reading through all the reasonable yet greyed-out comments in this thread feels like HN's last dying breath as a place for genuine debate.

Post by heavyset_go » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:15 PM UTC

dyauspitr wrote: post #189

_Algernon_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old? Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given wh…

Because just like the argument with social media in my opinion it’s better to have governmental regulation on these things so millions of households don’t have to have the same argument with their kids and kids not on social media platforms don’t get left out of a significant percentage of teenage life effectively socially stunting them.

Post by tolerance » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:16 PM UTC

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #388

tolerance wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll offer the following speculation: Virtual reality simulates physical reality. In some cases, like violent video games, they assuage traumas. Whether it's a recording on a screen or not, can our brains tell the difference? Something is going on, spooky and subtle in the mind that makes whatever is on the screen meaningful to us. I don't want to get us trapped in this false interpretation that in the year 2025 ther…

Close: male but not middle aged Our brains can’t tell the difference, but that’s not what I said. What I said is that it can be turned off. Social media cyberbullying comes along with entanglements that keep you on the site. For a shock video, I think the suburban dad has a point. To be clear, if someone came up to me and said they had really struggled with what they’d seen in a shock video as a kid and that it was r…

Post by kennywinker » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:16 PM UTC

beejiu wrote: post #444

kennywinker wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion." Do you have any counter-evidence?

Post by Hikikomori » Sat, Jul 12, 2025, 11:17 PM UTC

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.