←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: 0.475s | 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 #
soulofmischief ◴[12 Jul 25 19:02 UTC] No.44544223[source]▶
This goes against the very ethos of the early web. We should not be normalizing any form of this extreme moral overreach.
replies(5): >>44544365 #>>44544606 #>>44545656 #>>44547558 #>>44547806 #
MangoToupe ◴[13 Jul 25 05:42 UTC] No.44547806[source]▶
I would call this a "legal overreach". Laws have nothing to do with morals or morality.
replies(2): >>44550753 #>>44558781 #
soulofmischief ◴[13 Jul 25 14:37 UTC] No.44550753[source]▶
In an ideal world, but in this case we're dealing with moral overreach from zealous Christian nationalists.
replies(1): >>44551539 #
1. MangoToupe ◴[13 Jul 25 16:27 UTC] No.44551539[source]▶
Again, you have no requirement to recognize this form of neurotic authoritarianism as anything related to either morality or christianity, for that matter. This isn't about morals at all, it's rather nakedly about control and ignorance.
replies(1): >>44562303 #
2. soulofmischief ◴[14 Jul 25 16:50 UTC] No.44562303[source]▶
...and it's packaged up as Christian nationalism. It's the next part of a very long campaign of developing an ignorant voting base who believe you are operating with a divine cause. It's used to cultivate racism and sexism and patriarchy. To not recognize the role of religion with respect yo governance in America's history is to ignore half the story. Look no further than the dollar bill, or Pledge of Allegiance, to understand how integral religion has been in our governance.