| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 6 hours ago |
| Judge Robert Pitman said that it violates the First Amendment and is "more likely than not - unconstitutional." The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify
the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental
consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to
purchase a book.
We enjoy 1A protections of speech and assembly. When we consider our rights, the productive, default position is that government is told no (when it wants to restrict us). |
|
| ▲ | robkop 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For those curious about the "consistent principle of law" here - SCOTUS wrestled with nearly exactly this question in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton earlier this year, and effectively emboldened more of these laws. Previously the Fifth Circuit had relied heavily on Ginsberg v. New York (1968) to justify rational basis review. But Ginsberg was a narrow scope - it held that minors don't have the same First Amendment rights as adults to access "obscene as to minors" material. It wasn't about burdens on adults at all. Later precedent (Ashcroft, Sable, Reno, Playboy) consistently applied strict scrutiny when laws burdened adults' access to protected speech, even when aimed at protecting minors. In Paxton the majority split the difference and applied intermediate scrutiny - a lower bar than strict - claiming the burden on adults is merely "incidental." Kagan had a dissent worth reading, arguing this departs from precedent even if the majority won't frame it that way. You could call it "overturning" or "distinguishing" depending on how charitable you're feeling. The oral arguments are worth watching if you want to understand how to grapple with these questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckoCJthJEqQ On 1A: The core concern isn't that age-gating exists - it's that mandatory identification to access legal speech creates chilling effects and surveillance risks that don't exist when you flash an ID at a liquor store. Note: IANAL but do enjoy reading many SC transcripts |
| |
| ▲ | devsda 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Law is a strange and possibly the only aspect in human societies where people are by default assumed to know, understand and follow it to the letter when everybody acknowledges that law is open to interpretation. You cannot in most cases claim ignorance as it can be abused by criminals. But there is whole industry of education, profession, journals, blogs, podcasts and videos trying to teach, interpret and explain the same laws. In the end it is decided by experts who have been practicing law for decades and even almost half of those experts may disagree on the right interpretation but a citizen is expected to always get it right from the start. | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr an hour ago | parent [-] | | Strange and destructive. I believe comprehensible law is a human right that is critically underacknowledged. Like, up there with the right to speech and a fair trial. If you cannot understand the law as it applies to you, you cannot possibly be free under that law, because your actions will always be constrained by your uncertainty. | | |
| ▲ | coderatlarge 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | maybe we’re inching towards rule by law vs rule of law by making things so abstruse that you need a multiyear education to understand what is allowed, when and where. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dmurray 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would read your summaries of legal precedents again, ahead of lots of people who AAL. | | |
| ▲ | monocularvision 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis. | | |
| ▲ | cmptrnerd6 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I also recommend that podcast but I would suggest balancing it with '5-4' podcast or 'strict scrutiny'. Sara and David do a very good job explaining both sides and the law but there are times I think advisory opinions could spend more time on the arguments made by the other side or the weaker portions of their supported view. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | knodi123 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > "would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors..." It's a dumb law, but, devil's advocate - isn't that how porn shops work? And porn shops also sell some non-porn items, too. |
| |
|
| ▲ | selinkocalar 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The technical implementation is messy too. Most age verification systems either don't work well or create massive privacy risks by requiring government ID uploads. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example. What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling. |
| |
| ▲ | Zak 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Laws limiting fundamental constitutional rights are subject to "strict scrutiny", which means they must be justified by a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored, and be the least restrictive means to achieve the interest in question. One might reasonably argue even that standard gives the government too much leeway when it comes to fundamental rights. Age restrictions narrowly tailored to specific content thought to be harmful to minors have often been tolerated by the courts, but something broad like all book stores, all movie theaters, or all app stores violates all three strict scrutiny tests. | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm interested: the only one that I can think of that has some limitations is the second amendment? Are there others? As to the first amendment: Although not equal to that of adults, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." Only in relatively narrow and limited circumstances can the government restrict kids' rights when it comes to protected speech. (Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975).) | | |
| ▲ | jfengel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why is the second amendment excepted? Nothing in the text says anything different from the others with regards to age. And don't say "because it's insane for kids to buy deadly weapons" because that doesn't seem to figure into any other part of second amendment interpretation. | | |
| ▲ | etchalon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces." If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them. | | |
| ▲ | monocularvision 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They could still be impeached by the legislative branch. | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s called a constitutional crisis and then gets into bringing guns out to see who’s really in charge. | |
| ▲ | etchalon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They very much are not bound to ignore the courts. That's not a thing. That's very explicitly not a thing. Why would you think that's a thing? |
|
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough. |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Bong hits 4 Jesus case[1] clarified that minors don’t have full first amendment rights since they are compelled to attend school, and government employees can punish them for their speech. My memory is failing me for the relevant case name but I’m also fairly sure students don’t have full 4th amendment rights, again because they are compelled to attend school and the government employees are allowed to search them at any time [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick | | |
| |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The government doesn't have a compelling state interest in preventing you from downloading any app (a weather app, for instance) unless you provide your government ID first. > In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny | |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. Some of this depends on whether the state has an interest in preventing known, broad harms - say in the case limiting minors ability to consume alcohol. Conversely, there are no clearly proven, known targeted harms with respect of youth access to app stores (or even social media). What there are, are poorly represented / interpreted studies and a lot of media that is amplifying confused voices concerning these things. | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example. > What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling. The Constitution of the US mentions age in a few very specific places, namely the minimum age to run for The House, The Senate, The Presidential seat, and I believe voting age. I don't understand your point. | | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is a simple observation of the current state of reality. Those age limits are arbitrary and the justification can sometimes be nebulous but they clearly exist in the US. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is explicitly the case with voting rights, but other than that? While there a contextual limits where age may be a factor as to whether the context applies (e.g., some of the linitations that are permitted in public schools), I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself. Can you explain specifically what you are referring to here? | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself. Right to keep and bear arms -- federally 21 to buy a handgun and 18 to buy a rifle/shotgun from an FFL. Although sometimes you can touch federal law (NFA) and not have such limit -- a 12 year old could buy a machine gun or grenade for instance privately and still be able to buy a federal tax stamp. Speech - a little looser but the 1A rights of minors in schools are a little bit less than that of staff. It's been awhile since I looked over the cases but IIRC staff had slightly stronger free speech regarding political speech than students (I'll try to dig up the case later if someone asks for it). | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is a difference between what is said in the constitution and what has been declared as a federal law. For example: meth is very illegal under federal law, and not mentioned in the constitution. You should stop citing the constitution. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The controlled substance act, as applied, is insanely unconstitutional. That's part of the reason why they needed to pass an amendment to ban liquor. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The controlled substance act, as applied, is insanely unconstitutional. That's part of the reason why they needed to pass an amendment to ban liquor. The Wartime Prohibition Act says you are wrong. The 18th Amendment was certainly necessary to both make the policy irrevocable without another amendment, and to give states independent power notwithstanding usual Constitutional limits on state power to enforce prohibition on top of federal power, it is much more dubious that it was necessary for federal prohibition. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I just want to make clear, you completely ignored that I answered your questions and instead argued against someone else's tangent about meth (which although the government is unconstitutionally regulating as applied, isn't an explicit constitutional right which was what we were discussing) because they desperately needed to side rail the fact I was right by going on a red herring hunt (indeed, one where I was taken to task for apparently mentioning the constitution on a question that involves the constitution). The wartime prohibition act, to the extent it regulated intrastate trade -- was also beyond the powers restrained by the 10th amendment. The fact a wartime era court lol'ed their way into regulating intrastate commerce is just another example of the federal government happily steamrolling rights (something they are especially good at around wartimes), but they needed the amendment to keep it up in non-wartime. ----- Re: irishman due to throttling ------ >Ignore meth. Do it again with wire fraud. The question was about age limits on things that there is an explicit constitutional right of. You don't have a right to meth nor wire fraud. Your argument here doesn't make sense, nor is there an age where meth or wire fraud are legal which again was the question. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ignore meth. Do it again with wire fraud. You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s ok to be wrong. Daww, edit: The seed for this thread was: > It is difficult to square the notional unconstitutionality of this with the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age. This just looks like another example.
> What is the consistent principle of law? I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling. I pointed out that "unconstitutionality" wasn't accurate, because it isn't. You went on about jurisprudence whathaveyou. You moved the goalposts. I suppose I moved with them to try and make my point. |
|
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pedantic, gotcha. Replace meth with wire fraud. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is a simple observation of the current state of reality. > Those age limits are arbitrary and the justification can sometimes be nebulous but they clearly exist in the US. I mean, kind of, I guess? States make their own age-related rules. The states are part of the US. So technically sure, you're right. In practice, you're very wrong. | | |
| ▲ | dmurray 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > States make their own age-related rules. The states are part of the US. So technically sure, you're right. In practice, you're very wrong This is wrong. It's particularly wrong in the way that you draw a distinction between theory and practice. It's so wrong that it's backwards. In theory, the states set age related rules. In practice, they must set them to what the federal government tells them to. This was established in the specific case in 1984 [0] when Congress realised that it could withhold funding to states based on how quickly they agreed with it, and in the general case in 1861 [1] when the United States initiated a war that would go on to kill 1.6 million people after some states asked it only to exercise the powers derogated to it in its constitution. [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have you looked at age-of-consent rules across the various states? Boating license age requirements? How have those two completely unrelated things have-or-not changed over the past 100 years across all 50 states? Age for kids to sit in the front seat of a car? Learn to drive a car? Get a work permit? States have age-related laws at an insane level. I don't know what you're on about. |
|
| |
| ▲ | shkkmo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Perhaps if you had examples or decisions to explain what you're talkinh about, you would make your point better? As is, you are being politely called out as incorrect because you are asserting someone people don't believe and not providing any argument, evidence or justification. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jibal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the fact that the exercise of other Constitutional rights have long been conditional on age Which of those are in regard to the 1st Amendment? > This just looks like another example. No, it doesn't. > What is the consistent principle of law? The 1st Amendment. > I am having difficulty finding one that would support this ruling. The judge stated it clearly. And if there's an inconsistency then it's other rulings that violate the 1st Amendment that aren't supported, not this one. | | |
| ▲ | kagrenac 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correct. If a right "shall not be infringed", then it shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. That right is inviolate. Any obstruction to its exercise is plainly anti-American. | | |
| ▲ | wyldfire 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If someone set a bomb using a speech recognition algorithm looking for specific elements of political speech, and I knowingly detonated it with that kind of political speech, would the act of my political speech be protected speech? Is the act of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater protected speech? Surely there should be some limits on what constitutes protected speech. | | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Note that I didn't say anything about the 1st Amendment having no limits, nor does the Constitution say that--someone else said that I was "Correct" but put words in my mouth. As for that "shall not be infringed" wording that is in the Constitution, there's a whole lot of sophistic, intellectually dishonest ideological rhetoric around it. The historical record shows clearly the Founders did not mean by their language what many people today insist that it means--for instance, they passed a number of gun laws restricting their use, and the original draft of the 2A contained a conscientious objector clause because, as the opening phrase indicates, "keep and bear arms" at that time referred to military use (and "arms" included armor and other tools of war; it was not a synonym for "firearms"). And some of the modern claims are absurd lies, such as that the 2A was intended to give citizens the means to overthrow the government, or that "well-regulated" doesn't mean what it does and did mean. George Washington was dismayed by the Articles of Confederation not giving him the power to put down Shay's Rebellion ("Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured"), and one of his first acts after the Constitution was ratified was to use the militia to put down the Whiskeytown rebellion. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/26/conservati... | |
| ▲ | catlikesshrimp 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Is the act of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater protected speech?" Strawman. That is not speech in the same way that yelling or crying is not free speech. The first one is the same strawman. Making the word milk a trigger mustn't milk illegal. | | |
| ▲ | jibal 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's certainly not a strawman when it's an oft repeated argument going back to Oliver Wendell Holmes' dictum in Schenck v. United States (and even further, as Holmes didn't invent this argument). The argument doesn't change if it's "There's a fire! Run, everyone!" -- and saying "that isn't speech, it's an emotional trigger" would be an intellectually dishonest evasion--lots of actual true blue speech triggers emotions. P.S. I won't engage further with people clearly not arguing in good faith. | | |
| ▲ | catlikesshrimp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There it is. Actual true blue speech triggers emotions. Speech communicates ideas. It is mostly opinions. If you state something as fact, when it isn't, it is libel. As such, saying "there is a fire" in the theater is not speech, it is an exclamation. If you aren't for free speech, then yes, yawning is speech. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | emptysongglass 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All of us in the EU could learn something from this judge's ruling and from the Constitution. The EU is on the fast-track to turning into a vast surveillance state the way things have been going (the increasing rise of arresting people who post mean things on the internet, Chat Control, age restrictions now rolling out in Denmark). We love to regulate here in the EU and now that love of regulation is being weaponized against its own people. |
|
| ▲ | echelon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hope we can use the First Amendment and freedom of assembly to tackle these ID age verification (read: 1984 surveillance) laws. I don't have faith that this will work. We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. |
| |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee - that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The challenge is that courts repeatedly and routinely support and protect the government in it's continual, blatant violation of our 4A protections. This has allowed governments at every level to build out the most pervasive surveillance system in human history - which has just been waiting for a cruelty-centric autocrat to take control of it. And for the most part, we have both parties + news orgs to thank for this. They've largely been united in supporting all the steps toward this outcome. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 Clearly, those protections have already been violated. | | |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. Clearly, those protections have already been violated. Absolutely. And to keep court-sanctioned violations from getting challenged, a state can utilize a number of tactics to shroud the methods in secrecy. This makes it very difficult for the violated to show standing in a challenge. The state has nearly every possible advantage in leveraging gov power against the public. | |
| ▲ | gruez 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. How does this work? Does that mean if Pennsylvania police ask google nicely for it, then google isn't breaking the law in complying? Or that Google has to hand over the information even without a warrant? |
| |
| ▲ | j-bos 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. Do you mean those who rent their homes? I rented for a long time. I bought a house. None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. I guess a credit union owns the mortgage, but they haven't and won't sell it. To those who will jump to disagree with me about the credit union selling my mortgage: they won't. They don't engage in that market, never have. | | |
| ▲ | j-bos 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Renters are one (large) category. No wasn't referring to mortgaged houses, iiuc those belong to the owner, the lender merely maintains certain rights to reposses in the case of a default. I was more referring to the average US resident or American who agrees to broad terms and conditions with, their ISP, Microsoft 1 drive, Roomba of the year, microphoned smart TV, email provider, cell service provider, etc. Many of which are essential for navigating modern society. | |
| ▲ | DebugDruid 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think he meant things like his personal notes and files stored in an app like Evernote, which law enforcement can request copies of. I don't like the idea of someone reading my private notes... | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Me either. You can write them down on paper. If we all acknowledge that the internet is a beautiful disaster that shan’t be trusted, which it always has been and always will be, we can all collectively get over ourselves about privacy on the internet. “Hey world I went overseas for vacation/holiday! I cooked this amazing dinner! I’m cheating on my SO using an online chat app!” Maybe stop doing all 3 of those things. I can’t tell you how liberating it’s been since I got off all social media in ~2008. It’s super easy to be very private if you so choose. Having any kind of internet presence is a voluntary sacrifice of privacy. |
| |
| ▲ | shkkmo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. Do you self host your own email? No? Those are "papers" that your email hosting provider can consent to providing law enforcement access to without a warrant. Do you use search engines? Your search history is in the same boat with the search engine company. Don't use a VPN? All of your internet traffic is in the same boat with your ISP You use a VPN? All your internet traffic is in the same boat with the VPN. The list goes on and on. It is almost certainly true that some company has private information about you that they can turn over without a warrant. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You forgot “houses” there, boss. | | |
| ▲ | squigz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You forgot to respond to anything except the "houses" part of this. It's obvious what GP and others are saying - that the concept of things like "papers" and "effects" are no longer as concrete as they used to be. What used to be physical letters stored in one's home are now emails stored on any number of servers. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | | |
| ▲ | shkkmo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | My house, papers, and effects aren’t not tied to whatever you’re calling out about the internet, not in the sense you’re insinuating. You’re conflating ideas to make a point. I admire the effort, you’re just not correct. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities There are two issues here, each harms us on it's own and both are intertwined toward our detriment. The first is the deeply problematic 3rd Party Doctrine with established that we lose our rights when a 3rd party has control over our private content/information. What few stipulations there are in the precedent are routinely ignored or twisted by the courts (ex:voluntarily given). This allows governments to wholly ignore the 4th amendment altogether. The second is the utter lack of meaningful, well written privacy laws that should exist to protect individuals from corporate misuse and exploitation of our personal and private data. And even worse than Governments willfully violating our privacy rights (thanks to countless courts) and worse than corporations ceaseless leveraging our personal data against us - is that both (of every size) now openly collaborate to violate our privacy in every possible way they can. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nunez an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Between AI improvements, laws like this and Telly, we are a few steps away from the telescreen. (I saw a Telly recently. This device should be terrifying, but "free" makes people make weird choices.) |
|
|
| ▲ | The_President 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| False analogy given by this federal judge. App stores are gateways to social environments and unknown or future content. Every book in a bookstore can be verified because the content can be known and audited. Regardless of opinion on the root issue, this judges statement aligns books with the Internet and they are absolutely not the same. |
| |
| ▲ | nunez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, but you can't stop eight year olds from grabbing a James Patterson or Stephen King novel from the shelf. Their parents should, and some librarians might throw a moral exception to their choice, but if they wanna read It, they're gonna read It. Enforcing anything other than that is a huge 1A violation IMO. | | |
| ▲ | The_President an hour ago | parent [-] | | "you can't stop eight year old from ..." Phrasing this as "you" versus "a second party to the child" involves me, where I originally did not present a statement that would give the impression that I'd be involved. Keep me - "you" - out of it. I'm simply making fun of this analogy. |
| |
| ▲ | lmz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | With that argument you could argue for age gating wifi access and mobile data. | | |
| ▲ | The_President 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bookstore and libraries are environments where content is known. I am not making any sort of argument that identifies internet access as something to age gate. Correct analogies should be used to present the most fool proof argument. | | |
| ▲ | Refreeze5224 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Who cares if you don't like his analogy? His point is that this is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Which, by the way, does not mention anything about content being known or not. | | |
| ▲ | The_President 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I should have contacted you, Refreeze98, prior to posting my comment that contained far less of an abstraction than you've condescendingly supplemented. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mjd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have you read the opinion? | | |
|
