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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by kayodelycaon »

gamblor956 wrote: post #364

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…

States are already trying to police abortions outside of state lines. If you helped someone get an abortion in another state, they want to be able to arrest you for it.

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

#462

Post by lelanthran »

felixgallo wrote: post #420
lelanthran wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because kids are impressionable and easily manipulated. It's why there is an age of consent that no kid can waive. It's why kids aren't allowed to do lots of things, like vote, drive, drink etc. There needs to be a compelling reason to make an exception for one politically charged thing that comes with irreversible physical changes. There also needs to be a compelling reason why that decision cannot be deferred until…

the child can't consent to medical procedures without a parent, today, and if the parent says no, the decision is deferred until the age of majority.

> he child can't consent to medical procedures without a parent, today, and if the parent says no, the decision is deferred until the age of majority.

What does the parent's opinion have to do with it? Their opinion is equally ignored when it comes to statutory rape, no?

This is not a "this is a private matter between the child and the parent" scenario. Some things are, but a clear majority of people do not feel that this should be one of those things.

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

#463

Post by siliconc0w »

It's a matter of time before the US system crumbles if these assaults on the federal system and civil liberties continue.

I live in state with a population of 40 million who gives $83 billion more to the federal government than gets back. It's absolutely insane we have to be ruled by afar by what is effectively a small minority. This will come to a head not only in Censorship, Immigration, Tariffs, Abortion access (banning abortion medication federally), Industrial policy, etc.

At a certain point California is going to say, "No Thanks" and peace out.

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

#464

Post by schrodinger »

Hikikomori wrote: post #449
lelanthran wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

I'm going to assume you're asking in good faith, and the short answer is yes — this is already happening!

Before engaging in what could be a huge discussion here, I suggest you do some quick searching about legal risks of performing life-saving abortion procedures, gender-affirming care for prison inmates, and workplaces choosing whether the health insurance they provide employees covers gender-affirming care as starting points to learn about the sad state of affairs.

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

#465

Post by anondude24 »

al_borland wrote: post #457
anondude24 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 restricti…

This would actually be an effective way to teach kids about technology. If they learn enough to install their own OS, let them have their smut. I’m hearing more and more how younger generations don’t have what people used to call basic computer skills, because everything just kind of works now. Putting up some road blocks that require research and hands on tinkering to solve, is an invaluable part of the learning pro…

I'm not sure bribing kids with smut to learn computer skills is good branding.

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

#466

Post by lelanthran »

kennywinker wrote: post #427
lelanthran wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)

The government, for good or bad, regulates all healthcare, and that government is guided by its voters.

The majority of voters don't see this as a bigger problem than the issue they are currently voting on.

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

#467

Post by ModernMech »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #210
danaris wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But there won't be. Because the ultimate purpose of laws like this isn't really to prevent minors from accessing porn. Ultimately, it's to 1) outlaw porn for everyone , because it's "sinful", and 2) outlaw disc…

You’re getting downvoted, likely because the people downvoting you dont realize that Project 2025 explicitly calls for the complete outlawing of pornography and the imprisonment of anyone who produces it. They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.

> They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.

Close, but it's worse than that -- they don't want LGBTQ+ material merely banned; they want LGBTQ+ people dead, or at the very least banned from all public life. The next step is where they call for the death penalty for child abuse (also in Project 2025). So according to them LGBTQ+ is pornographic -> pornography is child abuse -> child abuse is punishable by death -> therefore existing as a queer person is punishable by death.

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

#468

Post by lelanthran »

Hikikomori wrote: post #449
lelanthran wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

> So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

You sound surprised, so maybe you really don't know this: this state of affairs is how it's always been, and is likely to continue well into the future.

The government regulates all medicines, all medical procedures, and all medical practices.

It's literally one of the many jobs of government.

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

#469

Post by AnthonyMouse »

conradev wrote: post #290
al_borland wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting, but I’d like to go a step further. I watched the first quarter of the video on where they go over how it works. The site requests data from your ID and they get that data. The site chooses which data it needs and if it will store it or it or not. Sites these days have a tendency to ask for more than what they need, and to store it for profiling purposes. The user can deny the request, but then ca…

The spec is being implemented by Apple, who is sensitive to privacy issues. The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated. The spec spells out the complexity: some ID verification processes actually need a lot of info! But some, like an alcohol age check…

> The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated.

Aren't the regulations the problem here? If not for that nobody would be getting pressured to divulge this personal information to every shady app and website in the first place.

Suppose I want to make a service that verifies your age by asking you questions about what life was like before 9/11. Can I do that? And if I can't, is the problem the standards, or the law?

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

#470

Post by mixmastamyk »

kelnos wrote: post #186
_Algernon_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem—and it's a big one—is that in the physical world, age verification does not result in a centralized log of when and where I was, and what I did. If I buy cigarettes I show my paper id to some dude and then buy smokes. It's transient with no record (except the fallible memory of the bloke doing the ID check). This is not true for the proposed age verification schemes for the internet and that i…

That's not even universally true, though. I've been to bars where they scan the barcode on my drivers' license. I assume that's more convenient than reading the data off it, so maybe they're just doing it for convenience and aren't storing the data anywhere, but who knows, maybe they are. Maybe there's a database somewhere with a list of name, date, time, location tuples for some of my bar visits from years ago. Cree…

Yeah, grocery stores swipe ids too. Thankfully I’m too old, they don’t ask. Have to teach kids to not allow it. Definitely stored.
Post reply on HN