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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by yieldcrv »

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…

yeah my thoughts are that this is largely a User Experience problem than an onerous liability problem

The blog owner doesn't need to implement an ID check, the browser or OS just needs to tap into a service that has checked ID

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

#582

Post by uv-depression »

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?

Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.

Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

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

#583

Post by LexiMax »

lelanthran wrote: post #573
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?

> 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…

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

Because the idea that the only acceptable gender norms a kid is allowed to be exposed to and express is the one tied to their genes is frankly a ridiculous concept.

There's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls. If you don't believe that harmless message should reach the ears of kids, then why? What is in that sort of message that you're afraid of?

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

#584

Post by charcircuit »

cls59 wrote: post #547
tayo42 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

Many businesses in the US check ID at the door. If you are underage, they don't let you in. On the surface it seems reasonable to ask for an equivalent ID check online. But. The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it in a poorly secured back room that is regularly raided by criminal enterprises or outright sold by unscrupulous owners of the establishment. Similarly, they don't check in with the government in a…

They just take a picture with a phone or tablet. The reason you don't see people using photocopiers because there are better options.

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

#585

Post by convolvatron »

CPLX wrote: post #350
andrepd wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is how we are where we are now, where children are matched with pedophile groomers[1] and delivered endless advertisements for freelance porn practitioners for profit. Yes, which is why we are not in the early internet anymore and fully into surveillance capitalism, algorithmic social media.

Exactly. And the early internet lead directly here. Which is why going back makes about as much sense as picking up your baby and dropping it on the floor again.

All of those changes were choices. Like setting icann as a for profit entity at the behest of a corrupt libertarian faction. We didn’t have to destroy peer to peer communication. We didn’t have to cede email to google. None of those things were inevitable. Could have become anything really.

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

#586

Post by Spivak »

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.

The slope isn't slippery, it's paved with a Starbucks on the way. This process is outlined in detail in Project 2025 to get around 1A being used as a defense because the aim is to define anything as lgbt related as pornography.

The current administration has collected nearly all the pieces of Exodia to be able to legally criminalize homosexuality and transgenderism without ever writing a law that says those exact words and have it be held up as constitutional. I'd say it was clever if it wasn't awful.

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

#587

Post by jofla_net »

_bent wrote: post #149

We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now. There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok. But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences. Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of th…

Its really sad to see this getting attacked, now, after all that's transpired, after so many years. You'd think if it was that dire, again maybe 10 years in there would have been more action. But again its not genuine, so its really about the ulterior motives. Not even to mention the 1st amendment issues, which again don't just magically dissapear when a bunch of people stick to party lines.

Alas, we are in an age of hyper over-regulation though and this is just another example. I could come up with countless others in wildly different fields which have one astonishing commonality. That business has been running fine for ages and all of a sudden, we need to regulate.

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

#588

Post by cls59 »

charcircuit wrote: post #584
cls59 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many businesses in the US check ID at the door. If you are underage, they don't let you in. On the surface it seems reasonable to ask for an equivalent ID check online. But. The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it in a poorly secured back room that is regularly raided by criminal enterprises or outright sold by unscrupulous owners of the establishment. Similarly, they don't check in with the government in a…

They just take a picture with a phone or tablet. The reason you don't see people using photocopiers because there are better options.

I've never encountered a bouncer taking pictures of an ID. They check it, using a flashlight if needed, and wave you in.

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

#589

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #568
ndriscoll wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they actually just as hard to block though? e.g. I don't see much reason to allow traffic to any Russian or Chinese IPs for any reason from my network. To be honest a default blacklist to any non-American IP seems like it'd not cause much trouble for my family, and then if there were some educational or FOSS or whatever sites in Europe, those could be whitelisted on a case by case basis. Similarly the only expect…

Blocking every country outside the US is simply admitting failure here.

How so? Why would I not default filter e.g. Iran or Chad or El Salvador or most of the world on my home network? I can always unblock a specific IP if needed, but chances are that will never happen.

My kids aren't old enough for computers yet, but I'm mostly of the mindset that a whitelist or curated offline cache (at least for anything on the web) is the sanest approach for younger kids. Outside of .gov, .edu, a handful of discussion forums, and stuff not relevant to them like shopping/banking, there's honestly not a lot of utility to the web. If they end up interested in programming, reference material can be kept offline, libraries downloaded through a proxy repository, etc.

Post reply on HN