←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 5 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.109s | source
Show context
root_axis ◴[12 Jul 25 18:58 UTC] No.44544182[source]▶
> In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site.

> It's unlikely these interstate prosecutions would happen...

It might wind up being uncommon, but definitely not unlikely - it's basically assured that it will happen eventually, especially if the judge finds the text in question particularly or personally offensive.

I guess now is a great time to start a KYC company.

replies(7): >>44544219 #>>44544361 #>>44544368 #>>44544431 #>>44546007 #>>44546758 #>>44547821 #
kfajdsl ◴[12 Jul 25 19:26 UTC] No.44544431[source]▶
If an state AG tries to prosecute an entity that has no ties to the state other than content being passively accessible, that's probably another supreme court case if it doesn't get immediately decided in favor of the defendant in the lower courts. You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in.

If Texas wants to block content from entities that have nothing to do with Texas, they can build their own great firewall.

replies(3): >>44544515 #>>44544574 #>>44544760 #
1. ronsor ◴[12 Jul 25 19:37 UTC] No.44544515[source]▶
Isn't this covered by the "full faith and credit" clause? [0]

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/AL...

replies(2): >>44544564 #>>44547528 #
2. arrosenberg ◴[12 Jul 25 19:44 UTC] No.44544564[source]▶
Technically anything is possible with the Calvinball Supreme Court, but states can choose not to extradite their citizens. E.g. NY has a shield law for abortion doctors.

https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/police-departments...

replies(1): >>44544780 #
3. kelnos ◴[12 Jul 25 20:14 UTC] No.44544780[source]▶
This feels helpful, but puts a big burden on the person targeted. I live in California; let's say I run afoul of this Tennessee law and am criminally prosecuted.

California decides this is bullshit and won't extradite me to Tennessee. Great. The article mentions that 20-odd states are implementing similar laws (though most offer only civil penalties, not criminal). Let's say I want to visit friends in New York. I get on a plane, and the plane flies over one of those other states with shitty laws. They've decided to help Tennessee with their shitty-law enforcement, see that my name is on a passenger list of a flight crossing that state's airspace, and they require my plane divert to a local airport so they can arrest me.

Ok, maybe states can't do that? But I still have to be careful how I fly; I have to only take direct flights, or be very careful as to which connecting airports I allow in my itineraries. I have to hope that all my flights go smoothly, and that my flights never have issues that require them to divert to an airport in a state with shitty laws.

This still sucks for people who don't have to live in states with these garbage laws.

replies(1): >>44547971 #
4. comex ◴[13 Jul 25 04:31 UTC] No.44547528[source]▶
There are constitutional limits on when state courts can exercise jurisdiction over people not physically located in the state.

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

> Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer.

> Courts have held that the greater the commercial nature and level of interactivity associated with the website, the more likely it is that the website operator has "purposefully avail[ed] itself" of the forum state's jurisdiction. [..] In contrast, a passive website that simply makes the information available to the user will be less likely to have a basis for personal jurisdiction.

(By the same principle, even an interactive website can probably avoid jurisdiction if they block IP addresses from the state, and don't encourage people to evade the block or anything like that.)

5. johnnyanmac ◴[13 Jul 25 06:24 UTC] No.44547971{3}[source]▶
That would be one wild case if it did happen. Sucks for whoever it happens to, but that would 100% turn into a high profile case that puts the 10th amendment into question.

To be honest, it would be settled relatively quickly because I don't think any state wants to be the one to set such precedent as of now.