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

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 12:10 AM UTC

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.

Post by Tadpole9181 » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 12:12 AM UTC

aaaja wrote: post #267

const_cast wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is already blocked by age. In order to order internet service, you must be an adult, and you must prove it by showing papers, such as residence and pay stubs. Once the service or good is sold, all bets are off. The clerk at the corner store might ask for your ID to buy alcohol, yes. But they do not follow you home to ensure you don't give wine to your kid. And, if they did, would you be comfortable with…

The internet is not blocked by age. Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it. Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched? Age-restricted websites are no different. You can comply with the access requirement, or refrain from using the service. It's your freedom of cho…

Post by Hikikomori » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 12:13 AM 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.

Post by poly2it » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 12:15 AM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #494

poly2it wrote: post #256

A bit of a rant on the topic of digital supervision and age verification: Speaking personally, parent supervision was detrimental to my development as a child. I recently reached the liberation of legal adulthood. While my parents are often sweet, their intents did not always have the desired consequences given how they were enforced. Until I was around 15, I didn't have any computer I was able to freely tinker with,…

Obviously, there’s a difference between access to programming materials and the unethical majority of the internet. I had access to the former at about 12 but no access to the internet until age ~23. Was about perfect.

Post by brookst » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 12:16 AM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #468

Hikikomori wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.