Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online • Hacker News Board

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

#851

Post by jeremywho » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 3:20 PM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #626

perihelions wrote: post #25

There was a NYT article a couple weeks ago about Chinese morality police doing mass arrests of erotica authors, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/world/asia/china-boys-lov... ( "Chinese Police Detain Dozens of Writers Over Gay Erotic Online Novels" ) [note article contains large images of erotica novel covers] But you'd *expect* that of the PRC; the US, wow, has it ever fallen fast and fallen hard.

The Supreme Court is just doing their part as a part of Project 2025 (which is about 50% accomplished already btw)

Is there a breakdown of this anywhere?

ie, something that shows what was proposed in p2025 and what policies/procedures/orders have pushed a particular part of the plan forward?

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

#852

Post by zahlman » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 3:30 PM UTC

tomhow wrote: post #674

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe but it was part of my point, that the internet gets a pass for a vague variety of reasons.

We’re just trying for something better here, and this is only a place where people want to participate because of the people who make the effort to make it better.

I guess this is the one place I have to actually voice my complaint.

The entire thread is full of sneering and snark — dark allusions to fascism; unfounded (by logical necessity) allegations about the true motivations of people involved; and attempts to tie together all sorts of ideological enemies into a single outgroup, roughly labelled "Republicans". It is absolutely waging ideological warfare and it only seems to pass muster because it goes along with the community consensus rather than against it.

This has been happening on seemingly every vaguely politically-relevant, popular post for months. It didn't seem to be happening when I joined the site, months before the election. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ... seems like relevant reading here. With a note that this is from the previous cycle, and nobody has apparently learned a damned thing.

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

#853

Post by 3836293648 » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 3:38 PM UTC

mathiaspoint wrote: post #830

everdrive wrote: post #46

Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.

Sharing/storing child porn is already illegal and punished far more harshly. So it's not like we've gone from zero to one. We've been censoring things people don't like for a little while now.

Sure, but that is a step from banning because it's harmful to the producer to banning because it's harmful to the consumer

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

#854

Post by quickthrowman » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 3:39 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #141

dmix wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It existed only on the edges, usually in softer pragmatic forms, and stopped a lot of bad ideas as a pressure group. Characterizing the entire development of software and the internet in 90s-2000s as based on libertarian techno-utopinanism is largely manufactured narrative though. One I keep seeing pop up more and more. Largely by people trying to push poorly though out authoritarian gov-controlled internet by spinni…

I got us 4chan and 8chan. It got us mass shootings and endless "they are just trolling, they are just teenagers, they are just ironic" chorus constantly bad faith defending the far right.

4chan was started because posters in the Something Awful anime subforum could not stop posting underage child porn which was obviously against the rules.

To stop these disgusting freaks from polluting the SA forums with their child pornography and degeneracy, Richard ‘Lowtax’ Kyanka closed the anime subforum (ATDRW aka Anime Tentacle Death Rape Whorehouse) and moot started 4chan.

So yeah, 4chans early legacy is ‘a bunch of pedophiles were mad they couldn’t share their abuse images’ which later transitioned into a love of fascism. What a great place… NOT.

P.S. Adults who like anime are fundamentally broken, it’s children’s entertainment.

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

#855

Post by SauciestGNU » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 3:41 PM UTC

sigwinch wrote: post #656

raincole wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. I mean, they are. But I've never seen a similar reaction on HN or any forum when social media require age verification. Actually, I think most HN users would cheer if the government required Facebook to only allow users over 18. I feel the general opinion about something on the internet basically comes down to this simple rule: !(do Ame…

This would apply to Facebook just as any other site, and that’s obvious to the HN crowd. It’s the ambulance chaser section of the article that explains the problem. American Christians can and should rely on content blockers rather than lawsuits.

I think American Christians should do neither. Restricting a child's access to information in order to indoctrinate them into a set of beliefs unquestioningly is a form of child abuse. Various forms of psychological and physical abuse are extremely prevalent in American Christian parenting practices, and it's something as a society we should not tolerate.

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

#856

Post by dcow » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #801

dcow wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Society has grown up and we’re not comfortable giving the internet a pass because digital identity is hard. I'm not comfortable giving society digital identity, because being a human and not abusing the primitive is even harder still. And we can't take it back once we've built it. It's just there for every wannabe despot to start building systems of oppression with. And there's an awful lot of them running around wi…

The problem is using physical identity online sucks. Well intentioned and honest people want to fix that issue. I have flown entirely with a mobile drivers license without pulling out a physical ID for the last few years. It’s objectively better and it’s already here. It’s heaven. You can’t really be arguing that when some service needs your ID that uploading photos of it is better from any angle. There’s not a one.

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

#857

Post by scoofy » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

Fraterkes wrote: post #807

scoofy wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a liberal. I generally agree with the principle, not the premise. My point again is that these “rights” you’re talking about are built on our social contract. There is no premise that “porn is free speech,” in fact, quite the opposite, again, for centuries. The existence of porn on the internet was the result of legislation, not right. That legislation is changing, we need to organize to make sure it remains lega…

I don’t think you’ve argued your point very clearly: the examples I listed have also only been part of our social contract for a very short time (and are routinely under fire by the same people trying to ban porn). Also: people have distributed some version of porn for centuries (millenia?).

Distribution of pornography to minors has almost always been illegal during that time.

My photos only, go back to the 80s and you can buy porn, but not if you are a kid. Obviously it was a lot easier to enforce because it was physical media, but the principle here is that these laws were not unconstitutional.

I honestly think kids seeing porn is no big deal, but again, the folks in this thread comparing distribution of pornography to free speech are really, really reaching for something that just isn’t there. All of the precedents say pornography is not free speech.

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

#858

Post by dcow » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 4:14 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #785

dcow wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Are you arguing that we should not regulate porn, alcohol, and cigarettes? Most of the important regulations around these things have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Requiring bourbon not to contain methanol and adult performers to be tested for STDs aren't related to the internet. And once we're talking about the internet, those things are in a different category because alcohol and cigarettes are physical o…

You’re missing the point entirely. I’m talking about age requirements to purchase alcohol and cigarettes and view porn. There is not a world where we decide to restrict purchase by age in meatspace but throw up our hands and say “whelp we just can’t have digital ID presentation that would ruin society I guess we should give up on digital age verification and just let kids do whatever”. Whether the restrictions are justified or not or stupid or not, we’ve decided they should exist (and there are much more “legitimate” use cases for ID verification that happen entirely online with no meatspace concerns like banking and underwriting etc. so it’s somewhat a straw man to get hung up on porn). We’re not going to not apply our laws to the new technology that emerges as time progresses…

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

#859

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

jeremywho wrote: post #851

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court is just doing their part as a part of Project 2025 (which is about 50% accomplished already btw)

Is there a breakdown of this anywhere? ie, something that shows what was proposed in p2025 and what policies/procedures/orders have pushed a particular part of the plan forward?

[deleted]

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

#860

Post by 827a » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #732

827a wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Fine, then ATF Class 3 licenses, which are required to keep and bear some kinds of arms, are a breach of the 2A similar to how the 1A is being breached here.