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

Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 263 posts

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#81

Post by lovich »

mothballed wrote: post #56
etchalon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed fo…

That’s called a constitutional crisis and then gets into bringing guns out to see who’s really in charge.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#82

Post by catlikesshrimp »

jibal wrote: post #78
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It's certainly not a strawman when it's an oft repeated argument going back to Oliver Wendell Holmes' dictum in Schenck v. United States (and even further, as Holmes didn't invent this argument). The argument doesn't change if it's "There's a fire! Run, everyone!" -- and saying "that isn't speech, it's an emotional trigger" would be an intellectually dishonest evasion--lots of actual true blue speech triggers emotion…

There it is. Actual true blue speech triggers emotions.

Speech communicates ideas. It is mostly opinions. If you state something as fact, when it isn't, it is libel. As such, saying "there is a fire" in the theater is not speech, it is an exclamation.

If you aren't for free speech, then yes, yawning is speech.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#83

Post by The_President »

senshan wrote: post #25
ls612 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn has always been treated differently than other speech that is why most age verification laws want for it first. As for your other examples those are all technically voluntary, as it’s unlikely a government mandate that nobody under 17 can watch an R rated movie would pass constitutional muster. Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

> Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US. Good in theory, but practically impossible. Peer pressure is too high for parents to be a significant barrier. If you were successful, please share how you did that.

"Cannot" in the US means no route to enforcement in that context. Distribution of NC-17 content to minors was never directly illegal, but doing so anyway would open the door for potential legal issues under the more broad umbrella of laws that cover "distribution of lewd or obscene content to a minor" which is more of a "do so and find out" concept of enforcement versus specifically identifying NC-17/X content by law.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#84

Post by HDThoreaun »

senshan wrote: post #33
ls612 wrote: post #4

The only reason the earlier age verification laws were upheld were because they narrowly targeted porn. This is an entirely unsurprising outcome.

I do not see how this is an argument. If porn can be narrowly targeted, why apps can not be targeted narrowly as well? It seems to be more about harmonizing Texas law (SB2420) under the constraints of federal law (1A), so we will likely to see this question all the way to the USSC.

Apps aren’t a narrow target

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#85

Post by cmptrnerd6 »

monocularvision wrote: post #63
dmurray wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would read your summaries of legal precedents again, ahead of lots of people who AAL.

Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis.

I also recommend that podcast but I would suggest balancing it with '5-4' podcast or 'strict scrutiny'. Sara and David do a very good job explaining both sides and the law but there are times I think advisory opinions could spend more time on the arguments made by the other side or the weaker portions of their supported view.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#86

Post by jibal »

wyldfire wrote: post #49
kagrenac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. If a right "shall not be infringed", then it shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. That right is inviolate. Any obstruction to its exercise is plainly anti-American.

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.

Note that I didn't say anything about the 1st Amendment having no limits, nor does the Constitution say that--someone else said that I was "Correct" but put words in my mouth.

As for that "shall not be infringed" wording that is in the Constitution, there's a whole lot of sophistic, intellectually dishonest ideological rhetoric around it. The historical record shows clearly the Founders did not mean by their language what many people today insist that it means--for instance, they passed a number of gun laws restricting their use, and the original draft of the 2A contained a conscientious objector clause because, as the opening phrase indicates, "keep and bear arms" at that time referred to military use (and "arms" included armor and other tools of war; it was not a synonym for "firearms"). And some of the modern claims are absurd lies, such as that the 2A was intended to give citizens the means to overthrow the government, or that "well-regulated" doesn't mean what it does and did mean. George Washington was dismayed by the Articles of Confederation not giving him the power to put down Shay's Rebellion ("Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured"), and one of his first acts after the Constitution was ratified was to use the militia to put down the Whiskeytown rebellion.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/26/conservati...

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#87

Post by lelandfe »

senshan wrote: post #33
ls612 wrote: post #4

The only reason the earlier age verification laws were upheld were because they narrowly targeted porn. This is an entirely unsurprising outcome.

I do not see how this is an argument. If porn can be narrowly targeted, why apps can not be targeted narrowly as well? It seems to be more about harmonizing Texas law (SB2420) under the constraints of federal law (1A), so we will likely to see this question all the way to the USSC.

> "The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door"

Presumably for the same reason why libraries can not be targeted narrowly

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#88

Post by irishcoffee »

squigz wrote: post #66
irishcoffee wrote: post #43

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…

Oh, sorry. None of my papers or effects are in jeopardy either.

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#89

Post by Forgeties79 »

cmptrnerd6 wrote: post #85
monocularvision wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis.

I also recommend that podcast but I would suggest balancing it with '5-4' podcast or 'strict scrutiny'. Sara and David do a very good job explaining both sides and the law but there are times I think advisory opinions could spend more time on the arguments made by the other side or the weaker portions of their supported view.

Strict scrutiny is fantastic

Re: Texas app store age verification law blocked by federal judge

#90

Post by Forgeties79 »

selinkocalar wrote: post #38
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #2

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,…

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.

LinkedIn’s verification is maddening
Post reply on HN