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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by anondude24 »

dewyatt wrote: post #531
chgs wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We've drifted pretty far from the Constitution and what the Founders envisioned. The reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause was the start of a downward spiral. I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

> I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

Amendments proposed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 38 states. That's a pretty high bar for what you're suggesting.

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

#572

Post by kevingadd »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #316
VBprogrammer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.

How will you sell them porn when VISA and Mastercard ban you?

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

#573

Post by lelanthran »

LexiMax wrote: post #540
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.

> transgender treatments The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."

You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic.

> Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this?

Besides, my belief on this is irrelevant; the only transgender issue that has gotten pushback en-masse from the clear majority of people world wide has been transgender treatments on minors.

IOW, this (treatment for persons unable to give informed consent) is a very unpopular position.

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

#574

Post by LexiMax »

xethos wrote: post #569
LexiMax wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transgender treatments The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though. This is "Will the American State and Federal government impose an increasingly stringent moral compass on the wider internet, over time" Which... the VISA-Mastercard duopoly, backed by American soft power and with an American moral compass, already rather proves that point for anyone that's ever tried to pay for erotica outside the mainstream

> This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though.

I asked because I wanted to get a sense on if he conflating the two by accident, or if it was an attempt to steer the conversation away from free speech concerns.

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

#575

Post by mindslight »

overfeed wrote: post #244
mindslight wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now that we've arrived at the far right, it's time to stop decentralized dissent and prevent the pendulum from swinging back? This seems like a terrible idea. And personally I'd say mass shootings are primarily encouraged by corporate mass media (including social media) glorifying the events and the shooters, rather than anonymous message board speech.

"arrived" and "swinging back"? You sound like an optimist; the dark-enlightenment Neo-Reactionary folk behind this are only just getting started.

"Arrived" because any further and we're into the far reich. "Swinging back" because I have to be an optimist that as the blatant autocratic authoritarianism rises there will be mass pushback.

I do know how deep the sophomorically-justified rabbit hole goes, in that I've read a fair amount of dark enlightenment material. I actually credit Moldbug's writing for helping me go from defaulting to fundamentalist-axiomatic analysis (rightist) to leftist-constructive-qualitative analysis (leftist) - top down hierarchy is utterly incapable of responding to the complexity of the world, and only sounds so appealing post-facto when a singular coherent narrative has been written.

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

#576

Post by kevingadd »

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…

This is presently happening in China with homosexual literature: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056nle2drno

Rural police departments decide that a piece of text 'harmed' one of their residents and prosecute the author.

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

#577

Post by 486sx33 »

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…

[dead]

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

#579

Post by trehalose »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #316
VBprogrammer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.

It's only hilarious until they criminalize even looking at such content.

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

#580

Post by Manuel_D »

wreedtyt wrote: post #567
Manuel_D wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. The core issue at hand is that absent puberty blockers, somewhere between 60-80% do not persist with a cross-sex gender identity after going through their natal puberty. Psychologists attempted to predict which patients would persist in a cross sex gender identity and which would not, but they were nev…

It seems like you're referring to a specific study, could you link it?

A multitude of studies, not just one. This is the review covering the outcomes of gender dysphoric children who aren't given blockers:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44546443

Post reply on HN