←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
soulofmischief ◴[12 Jul 25 18:59 UTC] No.44544204[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(5): >>44544238 #>>44544534 #>>44545635 #>>44546638 #>>44547781 #
chgs ◴[12 Jul 25 19:40 UTC] No.44544534[source]▶
If the Supreme Court agrees they are constitutional then they clearly are constitutional, unless you think the constitution doesn’t apply
replies(7): >>44544713 #>>44545467 #>>44546022 #>>44546475 #>>44547154 #>>44547260 #>>44547702 #
dewyatt ◴[13 Jul 25 00:38 UTC] No.44546475[source]▶
We've drifted pretty far from the Constitution and what the Founders envisioned.

The reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause was the start of a downward spiral.

I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

replies(2): >>44546480 #>>44546735 #
anondude24 ◴[13 Jul 25 01:31 UTC] No.44546735[source]▶
> I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.

Amendments proposed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 38 states. That's a pretty high bar for what you're suggesting.

replies(1): >>44556630 #
1. dewyatt ◴[14 Jul 25 05:03 UTC] No.44556630{3}[source]▶
I think it's more likely we'd see term limits and balanced budget amendments. Possibly even the power for states to override federal laws, with a supermajority.

I'd like to see other things, like the commerce clause returning to its original meaning, but like you said, it's already a high bar.