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

51–60 of 263 posts

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

#51

Post by jfengel »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #13
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.

I'm interested: the only one that I can think of that has some limitations is the second amendment? Are there others? As to the first amendment: Although not equal to that of adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." Only in relatively narrow and limited circumstances can the government restrict kids' rights when it comes to protected sp…

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age.

And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation.

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

#52

Post by mothballed »

dragonwriter wrote: post #32
jandrewrogers wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself.

Right to keep and bear arms -- federally 21 to buy a handgun and 18 to buy a rifle/shotgun from an FFL. Although sometimes you can touch federal law (NFA) and not have such limit -- a 12 year old could buy a machine gun or grenade for instance privately and still be able to buy a federal tax stamp.

Speech - a little looser but the 1A rights of minors in schools are a little bit less than that of staff. It's been awhile since I looked over the cases but IIRC staff had slightly stronger free speech regarding political speech than students (I'll try to dig up the case later if someone asks for it).

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

#53

Post by mothballed »

jfengel wrote: post #51
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested: the only one that I can think of that has some limitations is the second amendment? Are there others? As to the first amendment: Although not equal to that of adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." Only in relatively narrow and limited circumstances can the government restrict kids' rights when it comes to protected sp…

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age. And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation.

That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough.

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

#54

Post by etchalon »

jfengel wrote: post #51
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested: the only one that I can think of that has some limitations is the second amendment? Are there others? As to the first amendment: Although not equal to that of adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." Only in relatively narrow and limited circumstances can the government restrict kids' rights when it comes to protected sp…

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age. And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation.

Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it.

Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

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

#55

Post by etchalon »

senshan wrote: post #33
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.

"If porn can be narrowly targeted, why not books?"

You cannot narrowly target a medium.

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

#56

Post by mothballed »

etchalon wrote: post #54
jfengel wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age. And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation.

Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces."

If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them.

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

#57

Post by irishcoffee »

mothballed wrote: post #52
dragonwriter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself. Right to keep and bear arms -- federally 21 to buy a handgun and 18 to buy a rifle/shotgun from an FFL. Although sometimes you can touch federal law (NFA) and not have such limit -- a 12 year old could buy a machine gun or grenade for instance privately and still be able to buy a f…

There is a difference between what is said in the constitution and what has been declared as a federal law.

For example: meth is very illegal under federal law, and not mentioned in the constitution.

You should stop citing the constitution.

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

#58

Post by mothballed »

irishcoffee wrote: post #57
mothballed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself. Right to keep and bear arms -- federally 21 to buy a handgun and 18 to buy a rifle/shotgun from an FFL. Although sometimes you can touch federal law (NFA) and not have such limit -- a 12 year old could buy a machine gun or grenade for instance privately and still be able to buy a f…

There is a difference between what is said in the constitution and what has been declared as a federal law. For example: meth is very illegal under federal law, and not mentioned in the constitution. You should stop citing the constitution.

The controlled substance act, as applied, is insanely unconstitutional. That's part of the reason why they needed to pass an amendment to ban liquor.

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

#59

Post by irishcoffee »

shkkmo wrote: post #47
irishcoffee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot “houses” there, boss.

Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.

My house, papers, and effects aren’t not tied to whatever you’re calling out about the internet, not in the sense you’re insinuating.

You’re conflating ideas to make a point. I admire the effort, you’re just not correct.

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

#60

Post by catlikesshrimp »

wyldfire wrote: post #49
kagrenac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If someone set a bomb using a speech recognition algorithm looking for specific elements of political speech, and I knowingly detonated it with that kind of political speech, would the act of my political speech be protected speech? Is the act of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater protected speech? Surely there should be some limits on what constitutes protected speech.

"Is the act of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater protected speech?"

Strawman. That is not speech in the same way that yelling or crying is not free speech.

The first one is the same strawman. Making the word milk a trigger mustn't milk illegal.

Post reply on HN