Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
731–740 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#732Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't really track with widespread and normalized use of pornographic materials, including written descriptions, by most adults in this country. There's a pretty wide gulf between "I don't think kids should be able to access this stuff" and "I think we need to supercharge the surveillance state and destroy the first amendment"
This doesn't destroy the first amendment any more than requiring an ID & background check to purchase a firearm destroys the second amendment. Which is to say that it might, but for exactly the same reason, so The People ultimately need to decide on a consistent choice of interpretation.
1A: Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech. (Note: freedom of speech includes the ability to listen to what you want)
2A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Congress making a law that prevents minors from accesing information is a clearly a breach of the first text.
Point of sale ID checks for guns are much less clearly "infringing on the right to keep arms". It is only limiting the sale, not the ownership.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. (1) Without addressing the general statement, specifically this isn't new. You’ve historically not been allowed to buy pornography or cigarettes or alcohol without age verification or watch obscene content between the nightly news runs. I don't see this specifically as parents wanting the government to raise their kids at all. It’s peop…
1) it doesn’t go as far back as you think. Only within my lifetime did the drinking age settle on 21. The Feds couldn’t do it directly, so they hacked highway funds. So that’s a bad example when porno has changed so much. What we’re risking here is parents who haven’t tried any solutions being convinced that litigation is the only way. 2+3. A simple cookie with a birth year ought to work. Why should every site worry…
I said decades not centuries.
A cookie with a birth year is not a cryptographic verification of a digital identity document. Anybody can click “I’m over 18”.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old? Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given wh…
Because it takes a village. Because I am my brother's keeper. Because as a society we have a responsibility to help and protect one another.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#735> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a lo…
If you look at the goals of christofascists this is really just the beginning of incrementally becoming a theocracy run by them rather than a democracy with a diversity of thoughts and freedoms. That is the antithesis of what they want.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#736Earlier 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”.
The majority of people pushing this in the USA are evangelicals who are moving more and more to christofascism over the years. Now they are mixing in government more and more and dropping the traditional values of Christianity and replacing them with fascism and prosperity gospel
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#737It's interesting that we, as humans, are all so neurotic about sex, and especially about allowing our kids to understand that sex exists, that we rush to outlaw any depictions of it that our kids could potentially see. While at the same time making sure adults are still able to see it, of course. Because everyone knows that when you're 6569 days old, seeing someone have sex will cause life-long scarring, but when you…
Not "we, as humans". Only for we, as third world country
I'm in Sweden, and we behave the same way. We just don't focus on exactly the same things. The attitude towards sex in general is more relaxed, but when it comes to CSA we would love to impose our views on defining and policing it on the rest of the world, see https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated. Aren't the regulations the problem here? If not for that nobody would be getting pressured to divulge this personal information to every shady app and website in the first place. Suppose I want to make a s…
Are you arguing that we should not regulate porn, alcohol, and cigarettes? Or that we shouldn’t have digital ways to do the regulating we’ve been doing for decades? If the discussion was a question of whether to regulate or not, I’d see more where you’re coming from. But the discussion is about how to effectively respond to the enforcement of existing laws now against websites. Society has grown up and we’re not comf…
I took their post to mean the law steers implementations down a path which is not privacy- preserving.
Showing your driver's license to the store clerk didn't used to mean the store kept a copy.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#739Earlier 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…
> What is in that sort of message that you're afraid of?
Your line questioning is sort of revealing that this only points you are wishing to score. I have, after all, not taken a position on targeted messages at children (I only pointed out that there are still restrictions on messages targeted to children).
I have already clarified that the specific contentious "transgender issue" is "transgender treatment", and that the clear majority of people all over the world are opposed to that specific "transgender issue".
I have not taken any position on whether or not children should be targeted with messages across the spectrum, ranging from the extreme on one end "It's okay for boys to play with dolls", to the extreme on the other "You will be happier after castration".
The reason I have not taken any position on messages is because of the many times proponents use the former as examples of what the rules should allow while ignoring that the rule they are championing also allows the latter message.
My position on the messages that children are to hear will always depend on the specific message. This is because children (even some young adults to, TBH) are impressionable!
If I had adopted your method of arguing for/against a point, I would have asked "Why are you so afraid of having your access to children cut off?" but I did not. Since you appear to be arguing your point in bad faith, I'm just going to go ahead and ask it.
If you had any faith that your message was the correct one you wouldn't be on the internet arguing for access to other people's children.
Why are you so afraid of having the easily impressionable in society prevented from seeing your message? Are you really afraid that if you don't get to imprint them with your message at the correct age they might never buy it as an adult?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#740> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a lo…
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.
Most of the BS from modern christians is a byproduct of the church trying to control every aspect of a person's mind and body rather than being an expansion of their spiritualism. Traditional religion does not like free thinking amongst its worshippers. Puritans were amongst the worst and they have a huge influence on early Americans and their religions.