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

[flagged]

Tor might be wildly popular in a few years.

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

The Supreme Court considered internment camps and segregation constitutional, until it didn’t.

There are also people who disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretations. Including members of the Supreme Court! Both current (dissents) and not (overturning past rulings.)

Let's not pretend that the current federal government isn't completely compromised.

Two hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence would suggest there has never been a right to obscenity.

Two-hundred and fifty years of piwertripping lawyers with their heads up their own asses, ignoring the plain text of the constitution.

Not really. The Supreme Court believes some rulings to be wrong the day they were decided:

> “The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: *Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided*, has been overruled in the court of history, and to be clear ‘has no place in law under the Constitution,’” Roberts said, quoting Justice Jackson’s 1944 dissent.

Tor doesn't protect against traffic correlation last I checked.

Mixnets/Nym are better for actual privacy.

(I've not audited Nym, not an endorsement)

We've drifted pretty far from the Constitution and what the Founders envisioned.

The reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause was the start of a downward spiral.

I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

>the Convention of States

when will that happen?

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

> I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

Amendments proposed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 38 states. That's a pretty high bar for what you're suggesting.

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 the People", which means if the people don't agree then the judges are wrong and should be opposed in every aspect.

The US legal system has gone out of control and it is getting to the point where people need to defy the law as a matter of principle and fight for their rights. The preamble of the constitution is pretty clear in its general goals, and working against the people's will, restricting the peoples rights, committing what the people believe are injustices, and causing social turmoil among them, are all blatantly opposed.

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 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 was simply wrong.

When at least 34 states call for a constitutional convention. Potentially as early as this year if at least 15 of the 21 states with proposed legislation enact the laws which call for a convention (currently 19 states have enacted laws which call for a convention). Thirty-eight states would need to ratify any proposed amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendmen...

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

Tor over DAITA? Especially with multihop over multiple non-cooperating legislators.

It can both be wrong and the ultimate decider.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

By definition, the Supreme Court does decide what is Constitutional. It doesn't decide what is right or moral, but it does, according to the Constitution, decide what laws conform to the Constitution.

>defeats the entire point of the Constitution

The point is not what most people think it is, the point is to give that illusion that there is the some rule of law. This illusion ensure that the potentially revolting masses are somewhat kept in check. Meaning the constitution is meant for the rulers, to serve their purpose, and not of the people.

I think it's more likely we'd see term limits and balanced budget amendments. Possibly even the power for states to override federal laws, with a supermajority.

I'd like to see other things, like the commerce clause returning to its original meaning, but like you said, it's already a high bar.

That is their job, yes. But they don't always do their job, especially in a compromised government. Let's not pretend that Trump didn't stack the courts.