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

61–70 of 263 posts

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

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

mothballed wrote: post #58
irishcoffee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

The Wartime Prohibition Act says you are wrong. The 18th Amendment was certainly necessary to both make the policy irrevocable without another amendment, and to give states independent power notwithstanding usual Constitutional limits on state power to enforce prohibition on top of federal power, it is much more dubious that it was necessary for federal prohibition.

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

#62

Post by irishcoffee »

mothballed wrote: post #58
irishcoffee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pedantic, gotcha. Replace meth with wire fraud.

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

#63

Post by monocularvision »

dmurray wrote: post #50
robkop wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

I would read your summaries of legal precedents again, ahead of lots of people who AAL.

Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis.

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

#64

Post by mothballed »

dragonwriter wrote: post #61
mothballed wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The Wartime Prohibition Act says you are wrong. The 18th Amendment was certainly necessary to both make the policy irrevocable without another amendment, and to give states independent power notwithstanding usual Constitutional limits on state power to enforce prohibi…

I just want to make clear, you completely ignored that I answered your questions and instead argued against someone else's tangent about meth (which although the government is unconstitutionally regulating as applied, isn't an explicit constitutional right which was what we were discussing) because they desperately needed to side rail the fact I was right by going on a red herring hunt (indeed, one where I was taken to task for apparently mentioning the constitution on a question that involves the constitution).

The wartime prohibition act, to the extent it regulated intrastate trade -- was also beyond the powers restrained by the 10th amendment. The fact a wartime era court lol'ed their way into regulating intrastate commerce is just another example of the federal government happily steamrolling rights (something they are especially good at around wartimes), but they needed the amendment to keep it up in non-wartime.

----- Re: irishman due to throttling ------

>Ignore meth. Do it again with wire fraud.

The question was about age limits on things that there is an explicit constitutional right of. You don't have a right to meth nor wire fraud. Your argument here doesn't make sense, nor is there an age where meth or wire fraud are legal which again was the question.

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

#65

Post by The_President »

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,…

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.

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

#66

Post by squigz »

irishcoffee wrote: post #43
shkkmo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 V…

You forgot “houses” there, boss.

You forgot to respond to anything except the "houses" part of this.

It's obvious what GP and others are saying - that the concept of things like "papers" and "effects" are no longer as concrete as they used to be. What used to be physical letters stored in one's home are now emails stored on any number of servers.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#67

Post by irishcoffee »

DebugDruid wrote: post #48
irishcoffee wrote: post #22

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. 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…

I think he meant things like his personal notes and files stored in an app like Evernote, which law enforcement can request copies of. I don't like the idea of someone reading my private notes...

Me either.

You can write them down on paper.

If we all acknowledge that the internet is a beautiful disaster that shan’t be trusted, which it always has been and always will be, we can all collectively get over ourselves about privacy on the internet. “Hey world I went overseas for vacation/holiday! I cooked this amazing dinner! I’m cheating on my SO using an online chat app!”

Maybe stop doing all 3 of those things. I can’t tell you how liberating it’s been since I got off all social media in ~2008. It’s super easy to be very private if you so choose. Having any kind of internet presence is a voluntary sacrifice of privacy.

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

#68

Post by dmurray »

irishcoffee wrote: post #29
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 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 established in the specific case in 1984 [0] when Congress realised that it could withhold funding to states based on how quickly they agreed with it, and in the general case in 1861 [1] when the United States initiated a war that would go on to kill 1.6 million people after some states asked it only to exercise the powers derogated to it in its constitution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

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

#69

Post by irishcoffee »

mothballed wrote: post #64
dragonwriter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The Wartime Prohibition Act says you are wrong. The 18th Amendment was certainly necessary to both make the policy irrevocable without another amendment, and to give states independent power notwithstanding usual Constitutional limits on state power to enforce prohibi…

I just want to make clear, you completely ignored that I answered your questions and instead argued against someone else's tangent about meth (which although the government is unconstitutionally regulating as applied , isn't an explicit constitutional right which was what we were discussing) because they desperately needed to side rail the fact I was right by going on a red herring hunt (indeed, one where I was taken…

Ignore meth. Do it again with wire fraud.

You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s ok to be wrong.

Daww, edit:

The seed for this thread was:

> 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 pointed out that "unconstitutionality" wasn't accurate, because it isn't. You went on about jurisprudence whathaveyou. You moved the goalposts. I suppose I moved with them to try and make my point.

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

#70

Post by monocularvision »

mothballed wrote: post #56
etchalon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
Post reply on HN