If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right?

Apparently, these are not quite equivalent. Like books and weapons, like books and alcohol, etc.

▲

jibal 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If the judge finds that apps and books are so equivalent, then letting the apps require age verification should do no harm -- everyone underage or privacy-concerned will simply go to the bookstore or a library. Right?

That is obvious harm.

	▲	senshan 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is only an obvious lack of equivalence

▲

mpalmer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have no idea what you're on about but the point is this chills speech, and infringes on the rights of everyone involved, not just underage people.

	▲	jaco6 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

ls612 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The equivalence is that children have first amendment rights (see Tinker v Des Moines) and speech delivered by the internet is still speech.

▲

senshan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Good point, but judge's reduction it to a book equivalence is misleading and weakens the judgement.

Porn may provide a suitable model: not all movies need age verification, so those can be viewed at any age. Some movies, however, do require age verification. Similar age ratings could be applied to apps. For example, Facebook only after 18 regardless of parent's approval.

▲

shkkmo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> judge's reduction it to a book equivalence is misleading and weakens the judgement

Good thing that isn't what happened. It is called an "analogy" and is not a factual statement of equivalence.

▲

ls612 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Porn has always been treated differently than other speech that is why most age verification laws want for it first. As for your other examples those are all technically voluntary, as it’s unlikely a government mandate that nobody under 17 can watch an R rated movie would pass constitutional muster. Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

▲

senshan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

Good in theory, but practically impossible. Peer pressure is too high for parents to be a significant barrier. If you were successful, please share how you did that.

▲

The_President 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Cannot" in the US means no route to enforcement in that context. Distribution of NC-17 content to minors was never directly illegal, but doing so anyway would open the door for potential legal issues under the more broad umbrella of laws that cover "distribution of lewd or obscene content to a minor" which is more of a "do so and find out" concept of enforcement versus specifically identifying NC-17/X content by law.

▲

ls612 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The question isn't whether your or my proposed regime is practical. The first amendment precedent is clear that the government is not allowed to restrict children's speech any more than it is adults' speech aside from some narrow and tailored exceptions.

	▲	senshan 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right. So SB2420 and the federal court judgment are the steps in the process to narrowly tailor another exception. Likely driven by the practical reasons mentioned earlier.