Most active commenters
  • dyauspitr(3)
  • tomhow(3)

←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 22 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.681s | source | bottom
Show context
perihelions ◴[12 Jul 25 19:00 UTC] No.44544210[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>44544239 #>>44544264 #>>44544350 #>>44547270 #
1. TimorousBestie ◴[12 Jul 25 19:09 UTC] No.44544286[source]▶
Yes, I believe that ten year olds should only have parent-supervised interactions with the internet.
2. olivermuty ◴[12 Jul 25 19:10 UTC] No.44544294[source]▶
With random lawsuits as a sort of offhand censorship of <thing you dont personally like>..??

Its the parents job to curate access to the inernet. I say that as a father of three.

replies(1): >>44544314 #
3. _Algernon_ ◴[12 Jul 25 19:10 UTC] No.44544296[source]▶
Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old?

Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given what they learn about themselves in a safer environment than the probable alternative.

replies(3): >>44544357 #>>44544819 #>>44548276 #
4. useless_eater ◴[12 Jul 25 19:13 UTC] No.44544314[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(1): >>44549610 #
5. dyauspitr ◴[12 Jul 25 20:20 UTC] No.44544819[source]▶
Because just like the argument with social media in my opinion it’s better to have governmental regulation on these things so millions of households don’t have to have the same argument with their kids and kids not on social media platforms don’t get left out of a significant percentage of teenage life effectively socially stunting them.
replies(3): >>44544949 #>>44545942 #>>44546031 #
6. kelnos ◴[12 Jul 25 20:35 UTC] No.44544949{3}[source]▶
Millions of households talking about this stuff with their kids, setting rule and boundaries and punishments, is exactly what should happen. That is literally what parenting is, and every parent must do it. Pushing that responsibility to the state is not only lazy, it's anathema to a free society. Your children will grow up to be robots who only know how to do what an authority figure tells them to do.
replies(1): >>44545549 #
7. dyauspitr ◴[12 Jul 25 21:59 UTC] No.44545549{4}[source]▶
In my opinion it shouldn’t. If 75% of kids are using social media it’s very hard to make the argument that your kid shouldn’t have a smartphone since your kid will argue that you are making them a social pariah (and rightfully so).

As a society we collectively tell kids they can’t have destructive, addictive substances until they’re a certain age and I believe social media and smartphones belong in that category.

8. Nasrudith ◴[12 Jul 25 23:02 UTC] No.44545942{3}[source]▶
No, it is not better for children to grow up in a fucking Orwellian dystopia just because you have hang-ups about sex.
replies(1): >>44547235 #
9. heavyset_go ◴[12 Jul 25 23:15 UTC] No.44546031{3}[source]▶
We have to implement a stronger surveillance state because... you don't like the idea of other people's kids using the internet?
10. tomhow ◴[13 Jul 25 01:04 UTC] No.44546594{3}[source]▶
> I pray that you will find God and recover from whatever trauma you have been through.

This is not an acceptable comment on HN, as it's a disguised personal attack. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

11. tomhow ◴[13 Jul 25 01:05 UTC] No.44546601{4}[source]▶
> Fucking troll.

That comment was unacceptable and I replied to them to say so, but it's also not OK to comment like this on HN, no matter what you're replying to. If we want others to be better we need to be better ourselves.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

12. dyauspitr ◴[13 Jul 25 03:24 UTC] No.44547235{4}[source]▶
I’m less concerned about porn/sex and more concerned about smartphone and social media usage.
replies(1): >>44548115 #
13. ninjin ◴[13 Jul 25 07:00 UTC] No.44548115{5}[source]▶
But why fall back on the state to police every website and service? Not to mention that the Internet is wider than any jurisdiction you can hope to achieve.

Plenty of devices have parental controls and it is your duty as a parent to look into this and understand the consequences when you hand a device to your child that allows them to consume a global diet of media and connects them to a majority of the global populous. It is not unreasonable to expect device/software manufacturers to provide the power to parents to do this and we already have had the free market provide options for this for decades.

To me, it is not any different than to expect a parent to consider the potential consequences of children playing in the streets, etc. and take action. Thus, to me, the people pushing this kind of legislation are either sloppy thinkers or dishonest in what aims they hope to achieve.

14. EasyMark ◴[13 Jul 25 07:20 UTC] No.44548206[source]▶
that is the responsibility of parents. and why is gay erotica any worse than straight? Kids have sought sex information out once they got curious about sex and since there have been things written down and humans learned to read.
15. TrnsltLife ◴[13 Jul 25 07:33 UTC] No.44548276[source]▶
Because it takes a village. Because I am my brother's keeper. Because as a society we have a responsibility to help and protect one another.
replies(1): >>44552530 #
16. mattnewton ◴[13 Jul 25 08:28 UTC] No.44548553[source]▶
If that were truly the goal we would either need a great firewall style internet filter or blocks on devices available to minors, since nothing about this approach works for websites outside of the US jurisdiction.

If you read the article there is a direct quote from Vought, one of the chief project 2025 architects, about how this is really a path to banning pornography. Which the project 2025 folks believe includes any discussion of lgbtq+ lifestyles.

17. ◴[13 Jul 25 08:36 UTC] No.44548599[source]▶
18. tomhow ◴[13 Jul 25 11:46 UTC] No.44549610{3}[source]▶
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

19. ndsipa_pomu ◴[13 Jul 25 13:23 UTC] No.44550280[source]▶
Far more damage happens by letting 10 year olds have access to firearms
20. LexiMax ◴[13 Jul 25 18:49 UTC] No.44552530{3}[source]▶
The thought of being complicit in a society that guards abused children of fundamentalist christians against apostasy and thoughtcrime fills me with despair and dread.

If that's the society we are heading towards, count me out. I shall sit on my hands to the best of my ability.

21. djrj477dhsnv ◴[13 Jul 25 19:03 UTC] No.44552630[source]▶
That's a decision for the parents of that kid to make, not the government.
22. mimi89999 ◴[14 Jul 25 09:18 UTC] No.44557945[source]▶
Who is responsible for preventing a child from running into a busy road and being hit by a car? And why, on the internet, does that responsibility seem to fall on everyone else?