←back to thread

693 points macawfish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.336s | source
Show context
tiahura ◴[] No.44544155[source]
A bit off base. He's basically having a meltdown over what's actually a pretty narrow ruling about age verification.

First, he claims the Court "nullified the First Amendment" for sex writing, but that's just not what happened. The Court explicitly said adults still have the right to access this stuff—they just need to show ID first, like buying beer. That's not "nullification."

Second, Ellsberg acts like any sex scene anywhere triggers these laws, but H.B. 1181 only hits commercial websites where over a third of the content is sexually explicit material that's harmful to minors. His personal blog with some raunchy stories? Probably doesn't qualify.

Third, the whole "fifteen years in prison" hysteria ignores that these are civil penalties, not criminal prosecutions for most violations. And interstate prosecution for a California blogger? Extremely unlikely.

Age verification requirements do create real burdens and privacy concerns. But Ellsberg's "the sky is falling" rhetoric makes it impossible to have a serious conversation about the actual trade-offs between protecting kids and preserving adult access to legal content. The Court tried to balance these competing interests—it didn't burn down the First Amendment.

replies(3): >>44544177 #>>44544181 #>>44548460 #
macawfish ◴[] No.44544177[source]
This isn't only about H.B. 1181 specifically, it's about precedent for any law like it having teeth across state lines.
replies(1): >>44544432 #
1. zeroonetwothree ◴[] No.44544432[source]
The ruling was not about anyone being prosecuted over state lines. So there was no precedent set.