←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 2 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stego-tech ◴[12 Jul 25 22:01 UTC] No.44545563[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(13): >>44545616 #>>44545682 #>>44545696 #>>44545710 #>>44545757 #>>44545790 #>>44545791 #>>44545797 #>>44545819 #>>44545845 #>>44545912 #>>44546077 #>>44546515 #
raincole ◴[12 Jul 25 22:27 UTC] No.44545710[source]▶
> These people will never actually ban pornography

Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.

> If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not

...

replies(4): >>44545759 #>>44545766 #>>44545772 #>>44545831 #
heavyset_go ◴[12 Jul 25 22:35 UTC] No.44545759[source]▶
You have it backwards, Pornhub preemptively blocked access based on geolocation before the bills even passed.
replies(1): >>44545788 #
raincole ◴[12 Jul 25 22:38 UTC] No.44545788[source]▶
So Pornhub hates money and traffic?

Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.

replies(1): >>44545817 #
heavyset_go ◴[12 Jul 25 22:42 UTC] No.44545817[source]▶
Pornhub did it in protest[1], hope this helps.

[1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...

replies(1): >>44545866 #
omarspira ◴[12 Jul 25 22:49 UTC] No.44545866[source]▶
The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.
replies(1): >>44545902 #
heavyset_go ◴[12 Jul 25 22:54 UTC] No.44545902[source]▶
That you have it backwards, because you do. Pornhub preemptively blocked states that were considering implementing ID rules, and states are not actively blocking Pornhub.
replies(1): >>44546075 #
omarspira ◴[12 Jul 25 23:21 UTC] No.44546075[source]▶
You don't seem to grasp the argument.

From above:

> These people will never actually ban pornography

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay

You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.

The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.

The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.

Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.

replies(2): >>44546147 #>>44546148 #
1. heavyset_go ◴[12 Jul 25 23:33 UTC] No.44546147[source]▶
Here's the OP I'm responding to:

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.

Note the word "literally" in the statement that US state are literally blocking Pornhub.

That is not the case. Pornhub blocked the states preemptively, not the other way around.

Hope this helps.

replies(1): >>44546194 #
2. omarspira ◴[12 Jul 25 23:43 UTC] No.44546194[source]▶
I get it and yes, you are technically correct that they are not "literally blocking" it. I just hope you can also see where I'm coming from. In context of the larger comment thread your reply felt like a nitpick that missed the point, and focused on that nitpick to the detriment of the larger point of that OP, which imo has some merit. Or at least some merit you didn't address. But I understand you are correct on this particular point. As a suggestion, maybe next time you could reply more as providing context rather than seeming to suggest their entire take was "backwards". Thanks for replying.