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

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by tialaramex »

stego-tech wrote: post #399
CamperBob2 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You can see how this model worked in Ireland for example.

Historically Abortion was literally prohibited constitutionally in the Republic. That changed†, one of my friends lived there at the time and she's got a picture somebody made (painted? sketched?) on her wall of the group watching the results come in. But for most of my life, abortion was absolutely illegal in the Republic of Ireland.

So, if you were poor, too bad no abortions, they're illegal. But if you're wealthy you just decide to "go on holiday", maybe a long weekend somewhere nice - and miraculously while abroad you stop being pregnant. No problem

†https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_...

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

#482

Post by landl0rd »

gamblor956 wrote: post #382
landl0rd wrote: post #207

> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a lo…

normalization of what I view as degenerate sex acts Those "degenerate sex acts" were normal enough when the Bible was written that they were included in the Bible. Most of our ancestors would regard modern Americans as hideously prudish.

Something being normal doesn’t make it right. Obesity is normal. Shoplifting has become normal in many places. People getting drunk is normal. Normalcy doesn’t equal moral rectitude.

Why do the opinions of my ancestors bear on that, and which ones are you talking about? Most of the ones I can think of, unless you run back to the days of tribal europe, would see the culture today as hideously liberalized. Regardless a lot of my ancestors probably did a lot of things I don’t think are right. Heck, I’ve done plenty of things I don’t think are right. None of that effects what actually is and isn’t morally good.

If I’m not running around telling off couples who leave the bar together, what do you care?

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

#484

Post by delusional »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #275
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…

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

This is a slippery slope towards democracy I tell you! Before you know it they'll be asking for representation.

Seriously, isn't this sort of par for the course? We've always regulated what minors can access on the internet. Facebook didnt even formally allow children on their site (I don't know if that's still the case). I think it's a much larger issue that we haven't been enforcing those rules, since we apparently think they are a good idea.

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

#485

Post by [deleted] »

tialaramex wrote: post #432
frogperson wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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" id…

[deleted]

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

#486

Post by __turbobrew__ »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #287
alwa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we could call this way… zero-knowledge proof! :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof I bet we could even get a major phone OS vendor to support such a thing… https://blog.google/products/google-pay/google-wallet-age-id...

Yet then again how hard is it to just grab your parents' ids while they're not looking and add it to your phone wallet?

Gate it in the touch id secure enclave. Then only the biometrics of the adult can provide the proof that they are over 18.

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

#487

Post by delusional »

breadwinner wrote: post #341
noosphr wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need an id to buy porn irl why wouldn't you need one to buy it online?

Because 'online' is the entire planet, including sellers in foreign countries. Would you like to have "digital borders" between countries, where data has to show some sort of passport to cross the border?

I mean if the alternative is complete lawlessness, then I suppose I do want digital borders. AMA.

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

#488

Post by wredcoll »

bobalob wrote: post #450
kennywinker wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

> Many later detransition

[Citation needed]

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

#489

Post by stogot »

nikanj wrote: post #223
tines wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walled gardens are only LLM-proof until some AI company makes an offer for the data.

I don’t care about that. I care about the number of DMs I get from ”superhorni420” offering me her nudes I don’t really see a future where Discord would let an AI company post the kind of 24/7 porn+crypto+scams you get in your email spam folder

WhatsApp does this. I get added to scam channels

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

#490

Post by rustcleaner »

Solution: build technologies which make government statute effectively irrelevant. It must be uncensorable even by a nation-state adversary, and must hide its users and their activities. The future is software technology designed to thwart the ability of prosecutors to introduce evidence into a court. We must fight against the state's War on Crime with everything we have; the state has abused that war for centuries to justify its expansion. Courts should only bless victims taking revenge or retribution, offer an optional institution of rehabitation and recompense that the convict can voluntarily ascend to, else if the convict chooses to be free then he's at the mercy of the victim and whatever the victim chooses to do to the convict. Court cases should not result in involuntary imprisonment but only voluntary, incentivized by not being assaulted/killed in public as an outlaw. (Elected oath taking office holders excepted, prison should be a real possibility.)

It matters more to restrain and limit the state than it does to punish bad behavior. Furthermore the state has committed countless crimes in its treatment of the customers they chose to condemn, and ought to be dissolved entirely down to the office clerk. Unfortunately, the only way that happens is law of the guillotine.

Post reply on HN