71–80 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technical implementation is messy too. Most age verification systems either don't work well or create massive privacy risks by requiring government ID uploads.
That feels like a feature and not a bug given the way some of this stuff is heading.
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.
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.
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. 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 establ…
States have age-related laws at an insane level. I don't know what you're on about.
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Have you read the opinion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Is the act of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater protected speech?" Strawman. That is not speech in the same way that yelling or crying is not free speech. The first one is the same strawman. Making the word milk a trigger mustn't milk illegal.
P.S. I won't engage further with people clearly not arguing in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
With that argument you could argue for age gating wifi access and mobile data.
Correct analogies should be used to present the most fool proof argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'm interested: the only one that I can think of that has some limitations is the second amendment? Are there others? As to the first amendment: Although not equal to that of adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." Only in relatively narrow and limited circumstances can the government restrict kids' rights when it comes to protected sp…
My memory is failing me for the relevant case name but I’m also fairly sure students don’t have full 4th amendment rights, again because they are compelled to attend school and the government employees are allowed to search them at any time