←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: 0s | 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 #
Hikikomori ◴[12 Jul 25 23:17 UTC] No.44546048[source]▶
So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?
replies(2): >>44546097 #>>44546116 #
lelanthran ◴[12 Jul 25 23:29 UTC] No.44546116[source]▶
> So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

You sound surprised, so maybe you really don't know this: this state of affairs is how it's always been, and is likely to continue well into the future.

The government regulates all medicines, all medical procedures, and all medical practices.

It's literally one of the many jobs of government.

replies(2): >>44546320 #>>44546371 #
brookst ◴[13 Jul 25 00:16 UTC] No.44546371[source]▶
Government run did not always mean majority ruled. Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion. In today’s US, we’re trending toward enforcing minority opinions about e.g. vaccines.
replies(1): >>44546497 #
lelanthran ◴[13 Jul 25 00:43 UTC] No.44546497{3}[source]▶
> Government run did not always mean majority ruled.

Right.

> Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion.

Correct, but it was with the agreement of the majority of voters! IOW, the majority opinion still prevailed.

We are not talking about tyranny of the minority by the majority; your example is literally the majority agreeing that those specific minorities rights be granted to them.

TBH, the opposition that we are seeing is opposition to medical intervention on minors who by definition alone cannot give informed consent.

Stop fighting that battle and I guarantee that this entire "issue" turns into a nothing-burger.

There is no reason to argue for medical interventions on someone who is unable to consent.

replies(2): >>44547574 #>>44551704 #
1. brookst ◴[13 Jul 25 16:51 UTC] No.44551704{4}[source]▶
There’s plenty of reason to argue for parents’ rights to make difficult ethical calls on behalf of their children. This happens all of the time. The only counter-argument is denying the harm that going through puberty as the wrong gender causes. Suicide rates support the reality. “Stop fighting against trans suicide” is disingenuous.