←back to thread

693 points macawfish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.412s | 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 #
1. EasyMark ◴[] No.44548460[source]
It's a foot in the door law. First they just "ask for ID", then they "save it permanently for warrants", then they "must upload all ID to Texas' ID servers and a list of all pornography viewed" to protect the children from known deviants. These sorts do not stop at "ID verification", they want to morally control every aspect of your life down to your bedroom activities.