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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by peterlk »

landl0rd wrote: post #482
gamblor956 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

normalization of what I view as degenerate sex acts Those "degenerate sex acts" were normal enough when the Bible was written that they were included in the Bible. Most of our ancestors would regard modern Americans as hideously prudish.

Something being normal doesn’t make it right. Obesity is normal. Shoplifting has become normal in many places. People getting drunk is normal. Normalcy doesn’t equal moral rectitude. Why do the opinions of my ancestors bear on that, and which ones are you talking about? Most of the ones I can think of, unless you run back to the days of tribal europe, would see the culture today as hideously liberalized. Regardless a…

Hijacking this comment because it seems to be the most recent. I’d love to start a private email thread with you if you’re willing to do so.

After the previous election, I felt wildly out of touch, and I’ve been trying to find people who I can talk to who might be able to help me improve understanding of my (metaphorical) neighbors. I suspect that our beliefs will be quite different, but I appreciate your willingness to provide long-form, respectful responses to so many comments here.

If you’re up for it, my email is in my profile

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

#662

Post by galangalalgol »

kevingadd wrote: post #572
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.

How will you sell them porn when VISA and Mastercard ban you?

Sepa, pix, ideal, swish? Bitcoin? A debit card from a bank on the us west coast that has state laws forbidding them to comply with laws like Texas'? If your hosting, banking, and residence are in CA, OR, or WA, and there was no discernable intent to target residents of the other state, it seems pretty unlikely anything could happen to you. Just don't take any plane that might get emergency diverted to some other state.

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

#663

Post by jasonfarnon »

duskwuff wrote: post #613
DangitBobby wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

R rated movies for one.

Absolutely not "banned". Movie theaters customarily won't let children under 17 into R-rated films without a parent, but there's no law that I'm aware of enforcing that - it's purely an industry custom. And there's certainly no analogous restriction when purchasing an R-rated DVD, or watching one on a streaming service.

The very reason this isn't legally enforced is because industry self-regulated this way (to avoid legislation that would come with actual liability). If the Internet made any effort at self-regulation beyond "say, you're over 18, right?" perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation.

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

#664

Post by throwaway48476 »

Aeolun wrote: post #660
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.

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.

roskomnadzor

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

#665

Post by hattmall »

kelnos wrote: post #194
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…

Flip it on its head. An age verification requirement might stop your 12-year-old from accessing a porn site headquartered or hosted in the US, but it will do nothing to keep your kid from finding porn on any of the thousands (tens of thousands? more?) of websites hosted in various other countries who don't care about this sort of thing. These sites are (or will be, if US-based sites become inaccessible) just as easy…

It's not about blocking it all. It's about blocking some, removing the monetary incentives to entice children from major players. It's about stopping some of the addiction and damaging effects. Just like we limit alcohol but kids still drink, or vape etc. They still do it, but it requires more effort and that barrier can be a very real barrier to addiction formation.

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

#666

Post by mystraline »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #605
NikolaNovak wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for that, I've been looking for a decent pre-AI/Non-wikipedia summary like that. Unsurprisingly but depressingly, at least 13 out of 14 points are a perfect match.

Well, jury is still out on #14…

Gerry and Mander told me to say hi.

(Seriously, gerrymandering, redistricting weaponization, bribery/campaign contributions, and the like are all forms of election corruption.)

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

#667

Post by BrenBarn »

It's ironic that the faction that's usually talking about "personal responsibility" is now saying we can't put this horrible burden on parents to control their kids' device use --- or even just teach them how to make healthy decisions and interpret what they see in a healthy manner. I seriously doubt that reading smutty stories online is going to scar a kid for life.

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

#668

Post by shadowfacts »

chgs wrote: post #134
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

If the Supreme Court agrees they are constitutional then they clearly are constitutional, unless you think the constitution doesn’t apply

> The Constitution of the United States was a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-constituti...

The Supreme Court is not the ultimate decider of what the layman's document means. It was wrong when it decided, for instance, Plessy v. Ferguson. The law that the Court upheld patently violated the Fourteenth Amendment and was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was simply wrong.

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

#669

Post by mindslight »

BrenBarn wrote: post #667

It's ironic that the faction that's usually talking about "personal responsibility" is now saying we can't put this horrible burden on parents to control their kids' device use --- or even just teach them how to make healthy decisions and interpret what they see in a healthy manner. I seriously doubt that reading smutty stories online is going to scar a kid for life.

It's not ironic, rather it's hypocritical. At this point it's painfully clear that they only invoke lofty ideals to trick reasonable people into supporting their backwards authoritarian agenda. The real aim is simply for power, and open hypocrisy is one aspect of demonstrating power - rules for thee, not for me.

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

#670

Post by dqv »

hollerith wrote: post #532
dewyatt wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've drifted pretty far from the Constitution and what the Founders envisioned. The reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause was the start of a downward spiral. I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

>the Convention of States when will that happen?

When at least 34 states call for a constitutional convention. Potentially as early as this year if at least 15 of the 21 states with proposed legislation enact the laws which call for a convention (currently 19 states have enacted laws which call for a convention). Thirty-eight states would need to ratify any proposed amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendmen...

Post reply on HN