←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.217s | 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 #
danaris ◴[12 Jul 25 19:23 UTC] No.44544403[source]▶
> 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.

But there won't be.

Because the ultimate purpose of laws like this isn't really to prevent minors from accessing porn. Ultimately, it's to

1) outlaw porn for everyone, because it's "sinful", and

2) outlaw discussions and depictions of queer—and more specifically, nowadays, especially trans—issues, because according to them, anything queer is automatically pornographic, no matter how tame the actual content is.

replies(3): >>44544418 #>>44544482 #>>44544942 #
IAmGraydon ◴[12 Jul 25 20:34 UTC] No.44544942[source]▶
You’re getting downvoted, likely because the people downvoting you dont realize that Project 2025 explicitly calls for the complete outlawing of pornography and the imprisonment of anyone who produces it. They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.
replies(4): >>44545517 #>>44546112 #>>44546342 #>>44546604 #
LexiMax ◴[13 Jul 25 01:06 UTC] No.44546604[source]▶
Here's the quote about their plans for transfolk:

> Transgender people will see their existence denied and their rights stripped away under Project 2025. The authors equate "transgender ideology" to pornography, calling for it to be outlawed. While the far-right policy agenda cannot directly ban transgenderism, it aims to do so indirectly by labeling it as pornography, and then outlawing pornography itself - effectively erasing transgender identity from the U.S.

Source: https://doctorsoftheworld.org/blog/project-2025-lgbtq-rights...

replies(1): >>44548493 #
harvey9 ◴[13 Jul 25 08:14 UTC] No.44548493[source]▶
That's a piece on a third party site. Do you have an original source for the quote?
replies(1): >>44548592 #
1. defrost ◴[13 Jul 25 08:34 UTC] No.44548592[source]▶
Skimming the 900+ pages of the primary source (one web copy here: https://assets.glaad.org/m/26f7f002c06fc6be/original/2025_Ma... )

the search term 'transgender' appears 13 times largely in screeds against the things the authors don't like, these are followed by dot point actions to take to eliminate the mote in their neighbour's eye.

  Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.

  Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection.

  * Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists;

  Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended.

  What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.

  * Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.

  * Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.
.. these are just short excerpts featuring the term. Reading through the FULL pdf (linked above) in those vicinities will provide further planned actions that will restrict rights w/out directly using the term.