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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by int_19h »

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…

You're essentially saying that you'd like to ban it long term, but since you can't make it happen right away, laws like these can serve as a first step to normalize censorship leading to such a ban.

Thank you for being honest about it and illustrating why the slippery slope is very real.

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

#972

Post by int_19h »

anondude24 wrote: post #454
xp84 wrote: post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

> I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo. I like this point. I feel like the tech community just figured politicians would forget about the issue. Instead of working together to develop a solution.

By providing technical means to implement such censorship in "more acceptable" ways, you lower the political bar for its passing.

Not only that, but once you do so, you effectively concede that such censorship is valid to begin with, which can and will be used against you to pass further laws along those lines in the future. And if those laws cannot be implemented without ditching all that privacy you worked so carefully to respect in your compromise, well, too bad about that.

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

#973

Post by int_19h »

Asooka wrote: post #400
xp84 wrote: post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

I would say the best option, if there absolutely must be age verification etc., would be to have a registry of sites that comply with all regulations and by default devices shouldn't access sites off that list. Basically a giant allolist for verified good sites. The internet is already effectively shrunk to less than a dozen sites for regular users, so this won't impact them, and the rest of us can have real free spe…

But we don't need any government intervention for this kind of thing. You can already maintain such a whitelist yourself, and interest groups can collaborate with businesses interested in maintaining their public image to have a centralized registry of voluntary certification for websites (similar to those ratings for e.g. movies that we already have).

Separately from that, if switching DNS servers is an easy workaround to keep access to porn, kids interested in it will quickly learn how to do so, trading recipes and even downloaded content directly. Ditto with Tor etc.

The fundamental problem here is that it is an attempt to censor something for which there is huge demand among the very group that's being excluded. The only way you can do so that would actually work is full-fledged panopticon, where all communication channels are pervasively monitored.

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

#974

Post by int_19h »

Asooka wrote: post #415
Fraterkes wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come one man, it would be trivial for me to credibly argue that your religion has given scores of young men an absolutely dysfunctional relation to sexuality, woman, their own body, etc. Anyone could make that case as easily as your case about pornography (arguably with more proof in my case). Should we legislate both the same way?

Yes, but "his religion" is over 2000 years old and has found ways to reform itself many times to re-centre itself towards the core teachings of Jesus Christ, namely compassion and piety. The Christians who sold indulgencies are not the Christians who burned witches are not the Christians who help those in need. It has existed for twenty centuries across continents and anyone who can corrupt it effectively wields the…

Pauline Christianity, which represents the vast majority of Christian denominations worldwide including the more liberal ones, has little to do with "core teachings of Jesus". Starting with the claim that Jesus is God, given that the guy literally never once claimed to be one.

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

#975

Post by bobbruno »

afavour wrote: post #375
cmilton wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.

The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.

> society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography

Once a significant part of said society can't (or won't) differentiate sexual education and intimacy from pornography, I don't think your statement holds true anymore.

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

#976

Post by int_19h »

siliconc0w wrote: post #463

It's a matter of time before the US system crumbles if these assaults on the federal system and civil liberties continue. I live in state with a population of 40 million who gives $83 billion more to the federal government than gets back. It's absolutely insane we have to be ruled by afar by what is effectively a small minority. This will come to a head not only in Censorship, Immigration, Tariffs, Abortion access (b…

Funnily enough, this was pointed out by the very people who established our federal government structure. Hamilton, Federalist Papers #22:

"Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last."

(https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp)

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

#977

Post by int_19h »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #474
siliconc0w wrote: post #463

It's a matter of time before the US system crumbles if these assaults on the federal system and civil liberties continue. I live in state with a population of 40 million who gives $83 billion more to the federal government than gets back. It's absolutely insane we have to be ruled by afar by what is effectively a small minority. This will come to a head not only in Censorship, Immigration, Tariffs, Abortion access (b…

Since the civil war it’s been clear no one is getting out alive.

ACW was the minority revolting against the majority.

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

#978

Post by sunaookami »

quickthrowman wrote: post #960
sunaookami wrote: post #901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is excellent bait

Thanks, I thought I deleted the last sentence but forgot to, oops ;) The general facts are true, my opinion of anime fans is my own

No the facts are not true, your origin history of 4chan is completely wrong. Moot was a massive weeb who wanted his own western Futaba alternative.

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

#979

Post by DonHopkins »

landl0rd wrote: post #924
DonHopkins wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don, we've discussed this on an old account of mine so at this point I'm pretty convinced you are set in your beliefs and more interested in publicly lambasting mine. But, for the sake of this thread, fine. In the source you linked most of the references in scripture were from the Old Testament. I am a Christian, which means I am part of a new covenant with God. Just like I can wear mixed fabrics, I believe that owni…

[dead]

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

#980

Post by sethammons »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #961
sethammons wrote: post #942

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never interacted with the app. I just show ID if those are in the order and I am the one answering the door.

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying that your response was uninformed.

I don't understand your seemingly petty and demeaning retort. What makes me uninformed? It sounds like you were the one who was unfamiliar with the ability to interact with door dash with an ID and not having to upload it.

I have accepted door dash as a non-door dash customer. They check for ID. Just like the store.

Post reply on HN