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

Post by BobaFloutist » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:37 PM UTC

bobalob wrote: post #450

kennywinker wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will

[flagged]

Post by mixmastamyk » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:42 PM UTC

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #780

mixmastamyk wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the comment downvoted so much? Am GenX.

Not having access to the internet during childhood 30-40 years ago is very different than not having access to the internet as a child now. I think most people are taking your description of your experience being positive as a recommendation - one that is very unrealistic in modern times.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:52 PM UTC

olddustytrail wrote: post #889

SauciestGNU wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exposing children to propaganda that they are ill equipped to deal with is also child abuse. Just because someone can argue better than you can does not mean they are right. Climate change deniers can be very convincing if you don't understand physics.

Post by BobaFloutist » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 7:27 PM UTC

Maken wrote: post #755

PicassoCTs wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its also to little, to late- the smut is in the LLMs now and they can generate whatever the user wants - locally. So good luck censoring that.

Easy, now every site hosting LLMs weights requires age verification.

Post by ozgrakkurt » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 7:59 PM UTC

827a wrote: post #890

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking id from the person watching porn has nothing to do with making porn illegal. If you think it is harmful to the people doing the porn, then it should be illegal. If not, asking for id is super useless. Also if watching porn is bad for the person’s spouse then they shouldn’t do it, which has nothing to do with asking for id

But isn't harm minimization a thing? That's something we practice in other domains, like providing clean needles to drug addicts. After all, if drug use is harmful to the people doing drugs, then it should be illegal. So; making things illegal often doesn't solve the problem. Making it harder to consume porn reduces consumption which reduces the amount of money being funneled into the industry, which might be benefic…