Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

ellsberg.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#631

Post by AlexandrB »

heavyset_go wrote: post #609
bobalob wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Many? You mean less than 1%[1]? > Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was That's less than the regret rate for life saving surgeries lol [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/

If you look at the studies examined, many of them are from the 90s and all are from before 2019. The rate of transition in minors has increased rapidly in the last 10 years, and it's not very convincing to see data about mostly adults and assume it's going to apply to this new situation.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#632

Post by mystraline »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #275
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#633

Post by veeti »

conradev wrote: post #158
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

You mean like this? https://webkit.org/blog/16993/news-from-wwdc25-web-technolog... It’s a W3C spec led by Okta, Apple and Google based on an ISO standard and it is being rolled out as we speak. This part other iOS applications that have registered themselves as an Identity Document Provider. Has some fun history: California went with an independent contractor for its mDL implementation, which ultimately pressured Ap…

> Marcos Caceres (Apple Inc.) > Tim Cappalli (Okta) > Mohamed Amir Yosef (Google Inc.)

Don't forget: these are the upstanding members of society who brought the dystopia to you.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#634

Post by dragonwriter »

mystraline wrote: post #632
VBprogrammer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#635

Post by mystraline »

ddq wrote: post #602
lelanthran wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic. > Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors? Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#637

Post by derbOac »

xp84 wrote: post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

Several things:

1. In the offline world, the child and media provider are in the same physical location, subject to the same laws. On the internet, they're in different places. This is central, as the argument by SCOTUS seems to be that the most restrictive law anywhere applies everywhere.

2. I don't think "just" is a silly instruction. Your child can do any number of things and we expect parents to have a certain amount of oversight and/or involvement to help children navigate it. I don't see how the internet is any different from anything else.

3. There's an important difference between a child entering a store or library and finding a page on the internet. Entering a store, library, or physical home, or whatever, presupposes a certain amount of effort involved in entering the premises, and that the owner of the store or whatever is present and can in fact monitor each visitor easily; on the internet it's a matter of linking from one text to another. Sometimes I don't think you can draw analogies easily, and this is one of those cases. To me it's less like requiring an ID for purchase of a media item within a store, and more like having ID requirements to view something in a public square, or having ID requirements to publish the media item in the first place. It's a bit like SCOTUS saying "if you publish a book in state X where it's legal, but state Y requires a publisher to be responsible for monitoring every purchaser of their book everywhere, then you have to comply with state Y."

For what it's worth, I think its absurd to have legal age requirements for speech, offline or online.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#638

Post by sigwinch »

aaaja wrote: post #197
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

This is a barrier put in place so that children are less likely to casually access these sites while they're browsing around. As an adult, no-one is forcing you to view pornographic websites. If you don't want to provide your ID as per these laws, simply refrain from viewing. It really is that straightforward a choice.

You should read the article.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#639

Post by DangitBobby »

landl0rd wrote: post #478
ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come from a small town and know many conservative Christians. They are pushing for this. Like you said, it is easier to blame external sources than to accept you need to do better as parent.

Many of them are. I just don’t see any reason to say “I disagree with the conservative Christians pushing this” rather than “I disagree with the people who support this.” There are secular folks who also support such legislation. It hints at a generalized animus towards religion and likely in particular towards Christianity, kind of like Fox News boomers complaining Obama wouldn’t say “radical Islamic terrorism”.

People need to understand that there is a radical Christian element trying to impose its beliefs on everyone. They should be called out continuously and especially when they successfully modify any laws, state or federal.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#640

Post by McAlpine5892 »

landl0rd wrote: post #472
boroboro4 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> massively negative effects pornography has on mostly young men Can you provide any source for this?

[flagged]

> I don’t need a source…

Yikes dude.

> …to back up what I’ve consistently observed with my own eyes

People have observed everything UFOs and demons to ivermectin curing their COVID. None of it is real but yet people continue to swear up and down on these things gs.

> ...given the speed at which research sometimes move

Filling in knowledge gaps with imagination is not a substitute for actual data. Ever.

> and particularly since any concern over perceived “sexual liberation” attacks one of the sacred cows of progressivism

Hard disagree. You yourself can go study human psychology and sexuality then perform studies. If you can assemble real data the scientific community would be forever grateful for your contributions. The real barrier is not “liberals”, it’s that it takes years upon years of hard work to get there. Unlike your comment, which is backed up by “my own eyes”.

> I know the research is there and has been if you’re actually interested

Leading with “I don’t need citations”, then promising that they’re “totally there” at the bottom doesn’t really sit right with me.

Anyways, it’s not the role of the state to legislate morality. That always ends poorly. If porn is bad for kids, then parents need to step up. Maybe the state could offer resources for parents - I’m not opposed to that. If it’s bad for adults, they those with chronic habits should seek help.

Post reply on HN