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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by watwut »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #165
watwut wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wont allow minors to take out porn. Simply, they wont and it would be illegal for them.

What public libraries have porn? Or is it the pearl clutching where a novel with a same-sex kiss is smut? What about all of the graphic acts that happen in the Bible?

Pretty much none which is exactly why the comparison to libraries makes zero sense.

And yes, there was considerable pearl clutching over same sex kiss. To the point the supposed old school bastions of freedom would not print it, would not put it in the library and would do everything possible for kid not to read it.

The physical world of back then was considerably more restrictive in terms of what kids could access. Whether in the libraries or outside of them.

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

#842

Post by soulofmischief »

booleandilemma wrote: post #677
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

No thanks, I'm not going to work on technology to enable the publishing of "obscene filth".

We don't get to selectively decide when a Constitutionally recognized inalienable human right is applied or not.

If you don't protect the right for Americans to share obscene material, you open the door for the first amendment to be trampled over time by the authoritarian ratchet.

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

#843

Post by soulofmischief »

ActorNightly wrote: post #558
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

Why would I dedicate time to improving lives of people who actively want to destroy themselves?

What on earth are you talking about? Surely you're not displaying prejudice against 340+ million people?

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

#844

Post by soulofmischief »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #790
shadowfacts wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wa…

It can both be wrong and the ultimate decider.

That doesn't make something Constitutional or not, especially when they choose to ignore extremely plain and direct language.

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

#845

Post by soulofmischief »

DangitBobby wrote: post #624
chgs wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If Mommy says I can't eat carrots because they are bad for me, I have to listen to her. But I don't have to listen to her because she's right, it's because she's mommy.

The fact that some people model the government as patriarchal or matriarchal is one of our biggest issues today, because under that model we accept that all sorts of moralist values must be legislated, and we patronize the hell out of our citizenry, and it really defeats the entire point of the Constitution.

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

#846

Post by Aachen »

EasyMark wrote: post #750
chriscrisby wrote: post #625

Who knew giving kids unlimited porn would have negative consequences.

any kid that has unlimited porn is a kid with poor parents, and they were gonna get into things much worse than porn anyway since parents aren't around and being negligent.

That's an interesting line you're drawing. I'd not say my parents were negligent or that I'm any worse off for having a computer to myself

I heard later they talked about porn and decided that if I seek it out, I'm probably ready for it and otherwise, if I find it icky (I remember feeling that way as a child), I'll just not go back to it. Looking back, for me at least, I think it really was that simple: some things are icky to me still today and I don't seek them out, but I don't remember ever wishing I hadn't seen something that I had looked up

The second thing is that my mom was concerned about my computer use, but then at some point saw that I also created things (probably HTML pages). She later told me that this was when she decided it could be good for my development to continue down this path and learn more about computers. I now work in IT. I don't think she was wrong

Keeping my computer use supervised just isn't feasible when it's most of my free time (after maybe 13 years old, idk). I don't think these considerations mean my parents were "not around". They were 100% there for me when I needed them and then some. You can call this negligent but that's neither their nor my opinion, more than ten years after leaving their supervision and looking back at it and how others are raising children currently

What seems harmful to me is the helicopter parenting style that movies and online (news) media portray the USA as doing. Idk to what extent that's actually real though, a lot of it seems really far out there

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

#847

Post by aaronmdjones »

watwut wrote: post #839
aaronmdjones wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hiding the fact that selection is in fact seriously limited If your goal is "prevent children from accessing adult material", it really isn't that limited. > underaged kids can not checkout non kid material without adult in the loop They don't need to. They can read it in the library; that's what libraries are for.

Have you ever been in the library? Cause they really limit minors. And obviously "adult material" is not referencing cookbooks for housewifes nor antic philosophy nor fantasy books meant for adults. It does in fact means porn and such.

I have been to my library yes. You don't need ID or a library card (unless you want to check something out or use a computer) and you can pick up any book you like (including e.g. 50 Shades of Grey), sit down at a table, and read it. There are children in there all the time and there isn't an adults-only section.

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

#848

Post by soulofmischief »

AngryData wrote: post #617
chgs wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quiet frankly I don't give a shit what a judge says is constitutional when they are acting in direct opposition to the stated goals of the constitution and I don't think anybody else should either. I believe the Founding Fathers both expected and wanted people to stand up in defiance against legal rulings and laws that many find unjust, even to the point of violence after some time. The Constitution starts with "We t…

And this is compounded by the efforts of multi-generational corporate brainwashing to the tune of trillions of dollars. A critical threshold of people are compromised and this is then used as proof that the "will of the people" is uncontested authoritarian fascism.

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

#850

Post by trynumber9 »

mdavid626 wrote: post #800
trynumber9 wrote: post #337

I'm genuinely curious. The parent buys the phone/laptop. And when little Timmy logs in to his phone the account should be in a family/group as a child account. What's with the obsession with actually verifying identity? Just make a web API available to determine if the current user is configured as a child account. Why isn't that enough to gate-keep access to adult content?

Timmy's friend in school has parents who have no idea about family/child accounts. They just give him a phone and let him do whatever he wants. Timmy's friend is really popular in school.

Identification verification doesn't solve that either. His friend could still hand him his phone after logging in and verifying, right? Unless they're doing facial scans the entire time the user is reading adult content.

It seems more like verification theatre.

Post reply on HN