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

31–40 of 263 posts

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

#31

Post by shkkmo »

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.

Perhaps if you had examples or decisions to explain what you're talkinh about, you would make your point better?

As is, you are being politely called out as incorrect because you are asserting someone people don't believe and not providing any argument, evidence or justification.

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

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

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 explicitly the case with voting rights, but other than that? While there a contextual limits where age may be a factor as to whether the context applies (e.g., some of the linitations that are permitted in public schools), I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself. Can you explain specifically what you are referring to here?

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

#33

Post by senshan »

ls612 wrote: post #4

The only reason the earlier age verification laws were upheld were because they narrowly targeted porn. This is an entirely unsurprising outcome.

I do not see how this is an argument. If porn can be narrowly targeted, why apps can not be targeted narrowly as well?

It seems to be more about harmonizing Texas law (SB2420) under the constraints of federal law (1A), so we will likely to see this question all the way to the USSC.

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

#34

Post by keerthiko »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #6

wait, so its not affect apple users ???? Google just sent me a email today that Google would push forward

I just received an email from Google Play Developer today morning that they will not be activating the age verification APIs (they will throw an exception) because of the injunction, so there's nothing Apple specific about this.

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

#35

Post by robkop »

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,…

For those curious about the "consistent principle of law" here - SCOTUS wrestled with nearly exactly this question in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton earlier this year, and effectively emboldened more of these laws.

Previously the Fifth Circuit had relied heavily on Ginsberg v. New York (1968) to justify rational basis review. But Ginsberg was a narrow scope - it held that minors don't have the same First Amendment rights as adults to access "obscene as to minors" material. It wasn't about burdens on adults at all. Later precedent (Ashcroft, Sable, Reno, Playboy) consistently applied strict scrutiny when laws burdened adults' access to protected speech, even when aimed at protecting minors.

In Paxton the majority split the difference and applied intermediate scrutiny - a lower bar than strict - claiming the burden on adults is merely "incidental." Kagan had a dissent worth reading, arguing this departs from precedent even if the majority won't frame it that way. You could call it "overturning" or "distinguishing" depending on how charitable you're feeling.

The oral arguments are worth watching if you want to understand how to grapple with these questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckoCJthJEqQ

On 1A: The core concern isn't that age-gating exists - it's that mandatory identification to access legal speech creates chilling effects and surveillance risks that don't exist when you flash an ID at a liquor store.

Note: IANAL but do enjoy reading many SC transcripts

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

#36

Post by GeekyBear »

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 government doesn't have a compelling state interest in preventing you from downloading any app (a weather app, for instance) unless you provide your government ID first.

> In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

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

#37

Post by kagrenac »

jibal wrote: post #21
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.

> 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 tha…

Correct. If a right "shall not be infringed", then it shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. That right is inviolate. Any obstruction to its exercise is plainly anti-American.

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

#38

Post by selinkocalar »

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,…

The technical implementation is messy too. Most age verification systems either don't work well or create massive privacy risks by requiring government ID uploads.

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

#39

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

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

There are two issues here, each harms us on it's own and both are intertwined toward our detriment.

The first is the deeply problematic 3rd Party Doctrine with established that we lose our rights when a 3rd party has control over our private content/information. What few stipulations there are in the precedent are routinely ignored or twisted by the courts (ex:voluntarily given). This allows governments to wholly ignore the 4th amendment altogether.

The second is the utter lack of meaningful, well written privacy laws that should exist to protect individuals from corporate misuse and exploitation of our personal and private data.

And even worse than Governments willfully violating our privacy rights (thanks to countless courts) and worse than corporations ceaseless leveraging our personal data against us - is that both (of every size) now openly collaborate to violate our privacy in every possible way they can.

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

#40

Post by shkkmo »

irishcoffee wrote: post #22
j-bos wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself.

Do you self host your own email? No? Those are "papers" that your email hosting provider can consent to providing law enforcement access to without a warrant.

Do you use search engines? Your search history is in the same boat with the search engine company.

Don't use a VPN? All of your internet traffic is in the same boat with your ISP

You use a VPN? All your internet traffic is in the same boat with the VPN.

The list goes on and on. It is almost certainly true that some company has private information about you that they can turn over without a warrant.

Post reply on HN