Looks like compelled speech to me, both for the operating system creator and the users. I do not believe that “interstate commerce” powers negate the first amendment.

▲

tantalor 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you really want to get constitutional on it, I think a better angle might be 4A (unreasonable search) or 5A (due process).

Requiring disclosure of my age is effectively a search, without specific probable cause, and there are no means for me to challenge this in court.

	▲	someguyiguess 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's really a violation of all of the above.

▲

gjsman-1000 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ever seen a giant warning on cigarette ads that nicotine is addictive? Do you think half the ad is covered by the black box out of charity?

Settled law decades ago.

On that note, today is April 15th, tax day. The day where if you don’t provide hard numbers about your life against your will and at your own expense, prison opens as a possibility.

▲

iamnothere 3 days ago | parent [-]

Cigarettes are a product that is sold. Many operating systems are free. I use several that are small projects entirely produced by hobbyists.

Even if they stack the courts with muppets who ignore the obvious first amendment angle to get this passed, I will never comply with this and I will happily help others defy it.

▲

krunck 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I pledge to defy it.

▲

gjsman-1000 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So if I hand out free cigarettes, I’d be in the clear.

▲

iamnothere 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The laws about giving (not selling) tobacco to minors are state laws, not federal. There’s no interstate commerce there or here.

Besides, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Cigarettes are a physical product, not a form of expression. Code is speech and compelled speech violates the first amendment. That makes even state laws for OS age verification unconstitutional.

▲

hrimfaxi 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Code is speech and compelled speech violates the first amendment.

The first amendment does not blanket ban compelled speech. You can be compelled to testify against someone if granted immunity. You can be forced to take an oath or affirmation in court. I'm sure there are other examples.

> The laws about giving (not selling) tobacco to minors are state laws, not federal. There’s no interstate commerce there or here.

If multiple states have differing legislation over the same area of commerce, it can affect interstate commerce. But anyway, after Wickard v Fiilburn interstate commerce is never not implicated.

> An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies.

> Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states").

> The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. ... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect'."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

	▲	iamnothere 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Court proceedings have been the one place that lasting, narrow 1A exemptions like these have been granted. (The Court is willing to give itself a few exceptional powers now and then.) > Wickard v Fiilburn A bad decision that is slowly being undermined and which will eventually be overturned. The State is not omnipotent.
	▲	layla5alive 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is such a bad decision - its infuriating. Incredible overreach of state power. This decision laughs at values such as liberty and freedom.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

VoodooJuJu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

bitwize 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	nemomarx 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How can Congress put anything into a law saying that the courts can't override it? Doesn't that impinge on separation of powers?
	▲	iamnothere 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The text of the bill hasn’t been published and this “sundown clause” in itself would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. You are talking out your ass here. I frankly suspect you are trolling especially given your comment history.