I think people are putting far too much of an ideological lens on this ruling. As a "matter of law" this seems like the right decision. The supreme court is not a board of dictators making societal decisions based on their flavor of the day. Their job is too see if the ruling is consistent with all other laws we have and the normal function of a modern society. Pushing the envelope one way or another is not their job even if they end up doing that. At the end of the day the (elected) state governments have decided to create a policy that reflects what their constituents want. The supreme court job is not to question the logic of that. They did not run for office or win elections. They just need to make sure that what being done is reasonable and not violating any existing laws. As a tech guy I think these laws are stupid but this case was not the right hill to die on. What needs to happen is that these laws get enacted, costs and unintended consequences happen and THOSE parties sue on the supreme court on that basis
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
591–600 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#592Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect a liquor store to check ID, why not a porn store?
Do booze shops in the US store peoples id's after they've flashed them (pun intended)?
Birthday attack: most places punch the eight digits MMDDYYYY into the keypad. You think you're safe, but that's 1 in over 20,000 uniqueness practically. Each store has how many local regulars? Sure sometimes there's overlap in birthdays, but it's unique enough.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#594Earlier 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
> 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 bigge…
> 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.)
That began in 1906; it's hardly something we've "always done".
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#595Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't feel as strongly about privacy because "community" is what holds civilisation together. Its nice to have a little space, and to have your own thoughts and opinions, but not at the expense of civilisation. People should not be able to use privacy to evade responsibility or debts. We always need to balance freedoms with responsibility. Final thought is that this is precisely why government and politics is not a…
> We always need to balance freedoms with responsibility. Sure, but is this a measure that appropriately balances it? I think the traditional view is that the balance should be: your rights end where they start stepping on another person's rights. We aren't really talking about someone else being harmed, we are talking about (at worst) someone harming themselves. There is no other person being harmed. On the other ha…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 reac…
> 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?
I fully agree there's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls
I think the idea that a boy wearing dresses and playing with dolls must automatically be trans is actually very harmful and I do oppose that message reaching anyone
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#598Earlier 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
"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…
> "Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers.
That is an extremely generous interpretation. I think you're giving way too much credit to the average person that uses that argument.
Also I really have to wonder how much of that desistance is giving up versus actually being satisfied.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 han…
You need to add Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, etc to that list to actually achieve what you set out to accomplish. Which then does more harm than what you’re trying to prevent.
He’ll realistically the US doesn’t make the cut either.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#600All 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.
> some group of middle age mothers
With all due respect this comes across as mysoginic and ageist. It is also quite unnecessary to your point. Especially because middle aged women aren't the most powerful lobby in the US by any stretch.