←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 4 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 18:53 UTC] No.44544145[source]▶
All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID?

If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and websites shouldn’t want to shoulder the responsibility for it.

It seems like this could work much like Apple Pay, just without the payment. A prompt comes up, I use some biometric authentication on my phone, and it sends a signal to the browser that I’m 18+. Apple has been adding state IDs into the Wallet, this seems like it could fall right in line. The same thing could be used for buying alcohol at U-Scan checkout.

People should also be able to set their browser/computer to auto-send this for single-user devices, where it is all transparent to the user. I don’t have kids and no one else’s uses my devices. Why should I need to jump through hoops?

replies(36): >>44544207 #>>44544209 #>>44544223 #>>44544253 #>>44544375 #>>44544403 #>>44544619 #>>44544667 #>>44544797 #>>44544809 #>>44544821 #>>44544865 #>>44544875 #>>44544926 #>>44545322 #>>44545574 #>>44545686 #>>44545750 #>>44545798 #>>44545986 #>>44546467 #>>44546488 #>>44546759 #>>44546827 #>>44547088 #>>44547591 #>>44547777 #>>44547788 #>>44547799 #>>44547881 #>>44548019 #>>44548400 #>>44548482 #>>44548740 #>>44549467 #>>44560104 #
VBprogrammer ◴[12 Jul 25 21:26 UTC] No.44545322[source]▶
The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.
replies(10): >>44545586 #>>44545590 #>>44545647 #>>44546175 #>>44546345 #>>44546880 #>>44547031 #>>44547319 #>>44547627 #>>44548721 #
cmilton ◴[12 Jul 25 22:13 UTC] No.44545647[source]▶
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
replies(4): >>44545805 #>>44546491 #>>44548089 #>>44548622 #
afavour ◴[12 Jul 25 22:40 UTC] No.44545805[source]▶
The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.
replies(3): >>44545909 #>>44548858 #>>44564597 #
lelanthran ◴[12 Jul 25 22:55 UTC] No.44545909[source]▶
You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
replies(3): >>44545985 #>>44546048 #>>44546539 #
LexiMax ◴[13 Jul 25 00:53 UTC] No.44546539[source]▶
> transgender treatments

The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."

Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

replies(2): >>44546716 #>>44546749 #
lelanthran ◴[13 Jul 25 01:34 UTC] No.44546749[source]▶
> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."

You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic.

> Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this?

Besides, my belief on this is irrelevant; the only transgender issue that has gotten pushback en-masse from the clear majority of people world wide has been transgender treatments on minors.

IOW, this (treatment for persons unable to give informed consent) is a very unpopular position.

replies(2): >>44546861 #>>44547038 #
ddq ◴[13 Jul 25 02:37 UTC] No.44547038[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(2): >>44547334 #>>44548437 #
mystraline ◴[13 Jul 25 03:50 UTC] No.44547334[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(3): >>44547577 #>>44547613 #>>44548229 #
hattmall ◴[13 Jul 25 04:42 UTC] No.44547577[source]▶
I have absolutely no clue about circumcision in the bible. But if it's in there WHY would it be, there's probably a reason that they figured out overtime and the benefits. There is an abundance of literature and well formed research to indicate the benefits of circumcision. It's not at all unlikely that people 1000s of years ago figured that out too, especially during a time when there were far fewer hygiene options.

The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.

replies(4): >>44547628 #>>44547642 #>>44548346 #>>44549495 #
CrossVR ◴[13 Jul 25 04:52 UTC] No.44547628{9}[source]▶
If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers. It is proven to be beneficial to a person's quality of life if they suffer from gender dysphoria.

I'm not sure what my personal opinion is on the topic, since I'm principally against infant circumcision. But I have less problems with puberty blockers, since it can still be reversed once a person is old enough to give consent.

replies(2): >>44547660 #>>44548585 #
1. sillysaurusx ◴[13 Jul 25 05:00 UTC] No.44547660{10}[source]▶
Not sure about them, but for me, that’s correct. Solid research should be the foundation we make decisions on.

I used to have a problem with that idea too, until someone pointed out that puberty is an irreversible process with major consequences. The fact that everyone goes through it is a bit irrelevant; if it was happening to someone over 18, puberty blockers wouldn’t even be controversial.

As a parent, what to do? I look at my 2yo daughter and wonder if I’ll have to support her in a decision like that one day, or go against her wishes just because she’s 11. If there’s research indicating that delaying puberty doesn’t have major long term harm, then I’m more likely to endorse puberty blockers.

replies(2): >>44548212 #>>44551094 #
2. VBprogrammer ◴[13 Jul 25 07:21 UTC] No.44548212[source]▶
I made an off hand comment here that has got a lot of great response while I slept. I do wonder though if I'd have mentioned a handful of other issues whether the trans one would still have been the one to stir most controversy.

The fact is trans people are a tiny minority who are abused for political gain. I don't have hard numbers but it's probably not an exaggeration to say that to grant or withhold puberty blockers is probably no more common than a smorgasbord of other agonising medical decisions you may have to make.

Personally I don't like the idea of puberty blockers but if my 7 year old decided tomorrow that she was a boy, and lived that as authentically as they were able for years, then I think long and hard about it.

3. dontTREATonme ◴[13 Jul 25 15:28 UTC] No.44551094[source]▶
It is impossible to pause puberty or any other biological process. You cannot delay and restart something that is biologically time-bound. By giving a child puberty blockers you permanently prevent them from becoming an adult. They will never develop any of the features required for having children, they will never experience the brain developments that help with reasoning and empathy.

There are no studies on this Bec doing such studies is considered grossly unethical and evil, same as studying brain lobotomies in infants. As such we have no science on this, there are just people who have decided one thing and are performing live experiments without any controls. However, it should be noted that until very recently there was no significant incidence of unexplained child suicide, there was no significant incidence of unexplained teenage suicide, nor was there a significant incidence of unexplained young adult suicide. This is 100% social contagion, exacerbated by evil greedy pharmaceutical orgs who have latched on to small childhood insecurities and used them to build a multi-billion dollar industry mutilating and disfiguring healthy people.

replies(1): >>44552360 #
4. BobaFloutist ◴[13 Jul 25 18:24 UTC] No.44552360[source]▶
Puberty blockers have been used on children to manage early puberty. The meds don't know if you're trans or not, so it's only reasonable to assume giving them to trans kids would have similar outcomes.