Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 263 posts

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#21

Post by jibal »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #9
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #2

Judge Robert Pitman said that it violates the First Amendment and is "more likely than not - unconstitutional." The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book. We enjoy 1A protections of speech and assembly. When we consider our rights,…

It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example. What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling.

> the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age

Which of those are in regard to the 1st Amendment?

> This just looks like another example.

No, it doesn't.

> What is the consistent principle of law?

The 1st Amendment.

> I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling.

The judge stated it clearly. And if there's an inconsistency then it's other rulings that violate the 1st Amendment that aren't supported, not this one.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#22

Post by irishcoffee »

j-bos wrote: post #19
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee - that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The challenge is that courts repeatedly and routin…

The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.

> The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.

Do you mean those who rent their homes?

I rented for a long time. I bought a house. None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. I guess a credit union owns the mortgage, but they haven't and won't sell it.

To those who will jump to disagree with me about the credit union selling my mortgage: they won't. They don't engage in that market, never have.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#23

Post by jandrewrogers »

irishcoffee wrote: post #14
jandrewrogers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example. What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling.

> It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example. > What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling. The Constitution of the US mentions age in a few very specific places, namely the minimum age to run for…

The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is a simple observation of the current state of reality.

Those age limits are arbitrary and the justification can sometimes be nebulous but they clearly exist in the US.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#24

Post by jibal »

senshan wrote: post #8

If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right? Apparently, these are not quite equivalent. Like books and weapons, like books and alcohol, etc.

> If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right?

That is obvious harm.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#25

Post by senshan »

ls612 wrote: post #20
senshan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, but judge's reduction it to a book equivalence is misleading and weakens the judgement. Porn may provide a suitable model: not all movies need age verification, so those can be viewed at any age. Some movies, however, do require age verification. Similar age ratings could be applied to apps. For example, Facebook only after 18 regardless of parent's approval.

Porn has always been treated differently than other speech that is why most age verification laws want for it first. As for your other examples those are all technically voluntary, as it’s unlikely a government mandate that nobody under 17 can watch an R rated movie would pass constitutional muster. Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

> Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

Good in theory, but practically impossible. Peer pressure is too high for parents to be a significant barrier. If you were successful, please share how you did that.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#26

Post by senshan »

jibal wrote: post #24
senshan wrote: post #8

If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right? Apparently, these are not quite equivalent. Like books and weapons, like books and alcohol, etc.

> If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right? That is obvious harm.

This is only an obvious lack of equivalence

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#27

Post by emptysongglass »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #2

Judge Robert Pitman said that it violates the First Amendment and is "more likely than not - unconstitutional." The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book. We enjoy 1A protections of speech and assembly. When we consider our rights,…

All of us in the EU could learn something from this judge's ruling and from the Constitution. The EU is on the fast-track to turning into a vast surveillance state the way things have been going (the increasing rise of arresting people who post mean things on the internet, Chat Control, age restrictions now rolling out in Denmark).

We love to regulate here in the EU and now that love of regulation is being weaponized against its own people.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#28

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

GeekyBear wrote: post #15
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee - that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The challenge is that courts repeatedly and routin…

> As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. https://news.yco…

> The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. Clearly, those protections have already been violated.

Absolutely. And to keep court-sanctioned violations from getting challenged, a state can utilize a number of tactics to shroud the methods in secrecy. This makes it very difficult for the violated to show standing in a challenge.

The state has nearly every possible advantage in leveraging gov power against the public.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#29

Post by irishcoffee »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #23
irishcoffee wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example. > What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling. The Constitution of the US mentions age in a few very specific places, namely the minimum age to run for…

The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is a simple observation of the current state of reality. Those age limits are arbitrary and the justification can sometimes be nebulous but they clearly exist in the US.

> The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is a simple observation of the current state of reality.

> Those age limits are arbitrary and the justification can sometimes be nebulous but they clearly exist in the US.

I mean, kind of, I guess?

States make their own age-related rules. The states are part of the US. So technically sure, you're right. In practice, you're very wrong.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#30

Post by ls612 »

senshan wrote: post #25
ls612 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn has always been treated differently than other speech that is why most age verification laws want for it first. As for your other examples those are all technically voluntary, as it’s unlikely a government mandate that nobody under 17 can watch an R rated movie would pass constitutional muster. Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

> Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US. Good in theory, but practically impossible. Peer pressure is too high for parents to be a significant barrier. If you were successful, please share how you did that.

The question isn't whether your or my proposed regime is practical. The first amendment precedent is clear that the government is not allowed to restrict children's speech any more than it is adults' speech aside from some narrow and tailored exceptions.
Post reply on HN