←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: 0.424s | source
Show context
everdrive ◴[12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC] No.44544268[source]▶
Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.
replies(8): >>44544359 #>>44544369 #>>44544497 #>>44545175 #>>44545690 #>>44550491 #>>44550525 #>>44550534 #
zeroonetwothree ◴[12 Jul 25 19:19 UTC] No.44544359[source]▶
I don’t agree, at least as far as legal obligation goes. The average voter is far more worried about porn and other explicit content and not so much about anything else.
replies(3): >>44544628 #>>44544941 #>>44547888 #
__loam ◴[12 Jul 25 20:34 UTC] No.44544941[source]▶
This doesn't really track with widespread and normalized use of pornographic materials, including written descriptions, by most adults in this country. There's a pretty wide gulf between "I don't think kids should be able to access this stuff" and "I think we need to supercharge the surveillance state and destroy the first amendment"
replies(1): >>44547967 #
827a ◴[13 Jul 25 06:22 UTC] No.44547967[source]▶
This doesn't destroy the first amendment any more than requiring an ID & background check to purchase a firearm destroys the second amendment. Which is to say that it might, but for exactly the same reason, so The People ultimately need to decide on a consistent choice of interpretation.
replies(2): >>44548077 #>>44548247 #
rocqua ◴[13 Jul 25 07:28 UTC] No.44548247[source]▶
1A: Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech. (Note: freedom of speech includes the ability to listen to what you want)

2A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Congress making a law that prevents minors from accesing information is a clearly a breach of the first text.

Point of sale ID checks for guns are much less clearly "infringing on the right to keep arms". It is only limiting the sale, not the ownership.

replies(1): >>44551486 #
1. 827a ◴[13 Jul 25 16:20 UTC] No.44551486[source]▶
Fine, then ATF Class 3 licenses, which are required to keep and bear some kinds of arms, are a breach of the 2A similar to how the 1A is being breached here.
replies(1): >>44564405 #
2. int_19h ◴[14 Jul 25 19:39 UTC] No.44564405[source]▶
NFL stuff is actually a pretty good example of largely pointless law considering that what it does is effectively just make the items in question more expensive by taxing them and artificially limiting supply. If you want to own a machine gun, a grenade launcher, or even a fully functional tank in US, you still can so long as you're rich enough to afford it (unless your state has laws banning it). There are no additional restrictions on who can and cannot own that stuff beyond the requirement to pay the tax.