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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by rdm_blackhole »

delusional wrote: post #495
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really. Privacy from companies maybe, privacy from governments and cops, certainly not.

> privacy from governments and cops It is very much not clear to me that you should have privacy from governments or cops. Aren't the whole point of the government and cops that they are the institutions we have created to entrust with this access?

Please feel free to set up a spyware on your phone that records every image you send, every text and email you write and saves all this data somewhere that you will never have access to and for an indefinite amount of time.

That is exactly what the EU is trying to do with the Chat Control law. Targeted law enforcement access to some data is not what is being discussed here.

We are talking about 24/7/365 mass surveillance without warrants and without the suspicion of any crime committed.

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

#652

Post by stubish »

soulofmischief wrote: post #30
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 goes against the very ethos of the early web. We should not be normalizing any form of this extreme moral overreach.

Ethos of the very early Internet. It was mid 90s when people started thinking the Internet was a great resource for kids, and various blacklists arrived for DNS and email and this cool Netscape web browser thing, and Internet providers were chosen on how much of the alt.* Usenet hierarchy they provided or which IRC servers were accessible. Way back when the Internet was academia, porn and piracy and the sysadmins could do little but roll their eyes when people talked about how great it would be when the schools would be able to give their students accounts and they could all hang out in #hottub and slap each other with trouts and other innocent things. ASR?

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

#653

Post by School-Cotton »

LexiMax wrote: post #583
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…

> Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this? Because the idea that the only acceptable gender norms a kid is allowed to be exposed to and express is the one tied to their genes is frankly a ridiculous concept. There's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls. If you don't believe that harmless message should reac…

“There’s nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls” is true, but it’s a very dishonest summary of what the transgender movement advocates for.

A more honest example would be something like “children with a male anatomy might actually be girls, depending not on physical but rather on psychological characteristics (i.e. ‘gender identity’)”. That’s a completely different claim, and one that fewer people would agree with, so your post is more or less a motte and bailey.

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

#654

Post by freejazz »

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 can't show porn to kids in regular stores, I'm not sure why it's okay to do it on the internet, such that it becomes "raising" the kids when it's not in the first instance.

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

#655

Post by comex »

ViktorRay wrote: post #196

This article is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to obscene sexual material. It doesn’t apply to sex scenes within artistic works or sexual content in general. There’s a test used to determine whether sexual material is considered pornographic. It’s known as the “I know it when I see it” test. More info on this test here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it More specifically here…

Nope. A key aspect of this ruling is that it's about "sexual content that is obscene to minors but not to adults". "Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors [..] and submitting to age verification burdens the exercise of that right. But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification."

The Texas law at issue takes the same three factors you quoted and lists them verbatim, but tacks on "for minors" to each factor, e.g.:

> (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

There's no precedent yet on what it means for something to "lack [..] artistic [..] value for minors", but it's almost certain to be interpreted as a harder standard to satisfy than the normal one.

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

#656

Post by sigwinch »

raincole wrote: post #428
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…

> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. I mean, they are. But I've never seen a similar reaction on HN or any forum when social media require age verification. Actually, I think most HN users would cheer if the government required Facebook to only allow users over 18. I feel the general opinion about something on the internet basically comes down to this simple rule: !(do Ame…

This would apply to Facebook just as any other site, and that’s obvious to the HN crowd.

It’s the ambulance chaser section of the article that explains the problem.

American Christians can and should rely on content blockers rather than lawsuits.

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

#657

Post by comex »

chamomeal wrote: post #641
justahuman74 wrote: post #618

So which state's ISPs do we need to IP-ban?

IP banning Tennessee would be an interesting form of protest. Seems like these laws are usually super unpopular, but the general public doesn’t usually find out about them enough to get upset. If it doesn’t airtime on Fox News, my dad will literally never know it happened. Putting up a big “Tennessee might try to put me in jail if you access this site” would get people’s attention. Not that any business that gets a r…

Pornhub has in fact been doing such a thing.

https://www.pornhub.com/blog/age-verification-in-the-news

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

#658

Post by stubish »

gxs wrote: post #24
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…

There was a thread on reddit asking the other day what about the modern world bothers you the most I actually considered this question and after thinking about it, despite everything going on, I think it boils down to lack of privacy as my biggest gripe in the modern world It’s such a tough concept to explain to the if you don’t have anything to hide crowd, but if someone wants to disappear, I don’t care if for good…

Privacy is required for the mental health of many people, perhaps everyone except the extroverted and naive. Anxiety and fear over people watched, caught, punished, especially innocently. Anxiety and fear over their lack of privacy being abused and harming them, such as currently popularized with identity theft and other crimes, or simple ridicule or bullying. And the resultant chilling effects, where people who wish to speak feel they cannot because they might suffer, especially in cases where this is an actual risk rather than normal existential dread. Without privacy, you can't be inclusive.

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

#659

Post by globalnode »

Someone missed the responsibility step: parents are responsible for their kids not rando strangers across the world, and when kids get old enough they're responsible for themselves. Unless they need carers, then the carers are responsible.

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

#660

Post by Aeolun »

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.

Only for sites hosted in the US. They’ll still be able to access Russian content on the matter of course. The land of the free web.
Post reply on HN