241–250 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't trust that the information about my identity would not be recorded while selling me my "free speech token". So the chilling effect on free speech would be exactly the same.
What if the digital infra that issues the token is state or Federal software? That should significantly reduce privacy concerns?
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.
I've never had my ID recorded at any liquor store in my life. I've bought alcohol in multiple countries. If that happens where you live I'd fight to have that practice banned legally for alcohol and tobacco purchases. Stores are definitely selling it to insurance companies. Also after I had a certain number of birthdays, clerks have stopped demanding my ID. So my purchases are pretty much anonymous. The card should b…
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,…
That is exactly the case for movies, yes? Movie theatres require a chaperon for minors for R rated films? (And theatres often block some ages entirely.)
That's a fundamental difference than the heavy handed approach of using the state to mandate KYC laws to post on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The equivalence is that children have first amendment rights (see Tinker v Des Moines) and speech delivered by the internet is still speech.
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.
The MPAA rating system and adhering to it is completely voluntary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If enough people stop believing in the law, it really threatens those in power. I think this is why the thing judges hate the most is people admitting when the law gives them an unfair advantage. A rule that unjustly benefits someone is fine as long as they don't break kayfabe. Big Brother loves you, that's why you can't install apps on your phone, it's to protect you from harm. The incidental monopolization, censo…
FWIW, laws aren't merely abstract tools of oppression, they're what binds groups larger than ~100 people into societies. And the true fabric laws are made of, is one of mutually-recursive belief, everyone's expectation that everyone else expects they're subject to them. Threaten that belief, the system stops working. The system stops working, everyone starves, or worse .
Having laws that tilt the playing field and then punishing anyone who admits the emperor has no clothes is just censorship. People still figure it out. Only then they get rewarded for knowing about it and not saying anything, which causes the corruption to spread instead of being opposed, until the rot reaches the foundation. And that's what causes "everyone starves, or worse."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most modern social media is the latter, but for trash and propaganda, rather than sex. So why doesn't the court apply the same rule that it's okay to check IDs on entry?
Probably because there are reasonable principles to draw on about withholding access to explicit sexual content from children, but there are no similar principles about trash or propaganda. Trash and propaganda are both pretty clearly within the remit of permitted free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
But in the absence of a warrant it _ought_ to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in the absence of a warrant it _ought_ to be.
Then your complaint should be with google for handing it over without a warrant.
My complaint is that Google should not have been permitted that choice in the first place. The entire sequence of events - from requesting the data without a warrant through to handing the data over without a warrant and any following data mining that was done with it should have been forbidden on constitutional grounds. Both parties ought to have been in violation of the law here. We need to fix the gaping hole in our constitutional rights that the third party doctrine represents.
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.
The source of that quote was a war-time judge who used that analogy in his ruling in 1919 against people handing out anti-war flyers. A ruling that was overturned in 1969.
It was precedent for 50 years.
That precedent died 56 years ago. It's been dead for longer than it even existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
But yes, I'm aware of the Third Party doctrine ruled on by judges whose conception of people making phone calls involved an individual talking to another human being (a.k.a. an operator) to connect you to who you wanted to talk to.
A practice antiquated when the ruling was made and a bygone relic by this point.