151–160 of 263 posts
I wonder why Texas did not start by targeting NSFW / porn apps specifically, like other states. I also wonder why smut literature (the best selling category of books on Amazon) seems to get a free pass.
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,…
As a UK subject, with a government that has begun implementing the online safety act, prosecuting people for tweets that clearly weren't inciting violence and getting rid of jury trials for cases with fewer than five years sentences, I look on with envy at your constitutional protections of the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does nothing to protect anonymity as you are still assigned a unique code that has been tied to your ID at the liquor store.
Historically liquor store checks were purely visual. These days they are often digital, meaning claims about privacy might (or might not) be outdated. The general principle still applies though. The physical infrastructure already exists, the ID checks do not necessarily need to be digitized or recorded, and even if they are the issued tokens don't need to be tied to the check. Grocery stores already sell age restric…
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. I mean, kind of, I guess? States make…
> 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 This is wrong. It's particularly wrong in the way that you draw a distinction between theory and practice. It's so wrong that it's backwards. In theory, the states set age related rules. In practice, they must set them to what the federal government tells them to. This was establ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Anti-war protests were what was meant by "shouting fire in a theater". That's what our government was trying to ban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False analogy given by this federal judge. App stores are gateways to social environments and unknown or future content. Every book in a bookstore can be verified because the content can be known and audited. Regardless of opinion on the root issue, this judges statement aligns books with the Internet and they are absolutely not the same.
> Every book in a bookstore can be verified because the content can be known and audited A bookstore with a single employee can no more verify the content of every new book or periodical put up for sale than Apple can verify all new content on the internet. Books and periodicals come out far, far too quickly for an independently owned bookstore to read first. Never mind new books which have set release dates where bo…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the difference between standing on a street corner shouting "shit" and taking a shit on a street corner. The court is generally pretty adept at navigating the difference between "a bookstore that has some spicy books" and "a sex shop that has some non-spicy books".
Laws which are open to abuse are bad laws. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the difference between standing on a street corner shouting "shit" and taking a shit on a street corner. The court is generally pretty adept at navigating the difference between "a bookstore that has some spicy books" and "a sex shop that has some non-spicy books".
Bookstores that carry porn are porn shops. Apps that carry porn are porn shops, and since the app store has apps that carry porn, the app store is a porn shop.