5 ms·

Whatever happened to the refrain "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it". That's all this is.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hn_acker 1y ago
In my personal experience, people usually use "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it" when referring to non-government responses to speech. It is a less rigorous offshoot of the concept "the First Amendment only applies to government restrictions to speech". > Whatever happened to the refrain "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it". That's all this is. That's not all it is, because you're ignoring the First Amendment. The consequences must fit the action, and proving third-party liability for speech (that is, liability for distributing the speech of others) requires overcoming a high First Amendment standard. I believe that the correct standard in this case is strict scrutiny because the broadly written bill's private right of action will chill bookstores from selling books that parents think are harmful to minors even though bookstores can sell both books that are safe for minors and those that aren't. Read my reply to OP at [1]. I also doubt that the bill would pass intermediate scrutiny, particularly the "further an important government interest" prong, because there is already a law criminalizing sale of harmful materials to minors [2]. The existing law better aligns with the First Amendment because criminal prosecutions have significantly less DDOSing potential and because the existing law has the following safeguard [2]: > It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification. The new bill might conflict with the safeguard because of [3]: > Sec. 98C.005. PROHIBITED DEFENSES. It is not a defense to liability under this chapter that the defendant: > (1) has been acquitted or has not been prosecuted or convicted under Subchapter B, Chapter 43, Penal Code; [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43882169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43882169 [2] https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-24/ https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-24/ [3] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01375I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01375I...
- gosub100 1y ago
  then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger.
  - hn_acker 1y ago
    > then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. Porn sites generally age restrict their content voluntarily in the United States. There are constitutional ways to enforce age restrictions on websites by law (such as requiring an RTA label as mentioned by Bender [1][2], with a private right of action in only limited cases), while age verification likely is unconstitutional [3]. Anyway, we're talking about bookstores that don't chiefly cater adult-only books. > then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger. It's not a nothingburger if any parent claiming harm can sue and if people can turn questionable book bans on school libraries into book sale lawsuits on bookstores. So what is a concrete way for a bookstore to "simply age-restrict the content" in a way that will prevent lawsuits and allow the law to pass strict scrutiny (which has a "least restrictive means" prong [4])? When I said that a criminal law has "significantly less DDOSing potential", I meant that (even lone) frivolous lawsuits can impose a massive burden on legal speech, like in the case of SLAPP suits [5]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43784936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43784936 [2] https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single [3] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/why-i-emphatically-oppose-online-age-verification-mandates.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/why-i-emphatic... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
    - gosub100 1y ago
      I think your viewpoint lacks awareness of diverse groups that may be sensitive to certain types of content. If you distribute works that disrupt the mind of a child, this bill allows parents to seek relief. I think that's a good thing. You can still peddle the offensive material but require ID to view it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hn_acker 1y ago

In my personal experience, people usually use "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it" when referring to non-government responses to speech. It is a less rigorous offshoot of the concept "the First Amendment only applies to government restrictions to speech". > Whatever happened to the refrain "you have the right to say it, but not the right to be free from the consequences of saying it". That's all this is. That's not all it is, because you're ignoring the First Amendment. The consequences must fit the action, and proving third-party liability for speech (that is, liability for distributing the speech of others) requires overcoming a high First Amendment standard. I believe that the correct standard in this case is strict scrutiny because the broadly written bill's private right of action will chill bookstores from selling books that parents think are harmful to minors even though bookstores can sell both books that are safe for minors and those that aren't. Read my reply to OP at [1]. I also doubt that the bill would pass intermediate scrutiny, particularly the "further an important government interest" prong, because there is already a law criminalizing sale of harmful materials to minors [2]. The existing law better aligns with the First Amendment because criminal prosecutions have significantly less DDOSing potential and because the existing law has the following safeguard [2]: > It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification. The new bill might conflict with the safeguard because of [3]: > Sec. 98C.005. PROHIBITED DEFENSES. It is not a defense to liability under this chapter that the defendant: > (1) has been acquitted or has not been prosecuted or convicted under Subchapter B, Chapter 43, Penal Code; [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43882169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43882169 [2] https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-24/ https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-24/ [3] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01375I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB01375I...

gosub100 1y ago
then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger.
- hn_acker 1y ago
  > then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. Porn sites generally age restrict their content voluntarily in the United States. There are constitutional ways to enforce age restrictions on websites by law (such as requiring an RTA label as mentioned by Bender [1][2], with a private right of action in only limited cases), while age verification likely is unconstitutional [3]. Anyway, we're talking about bookstores that don't chiefly cater adult-only books. > then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger. It's not a nothingburger if any parent claiming harm can sue and if people can turn questionable book bans on school libraries into book sale lawsuits on bookstores. So what is a concrete way for a bookstore to "simply age-restrict the content" in a way that will prevent lawsuits and allow the law to pass strict scrutiny (which has a "least restrictive means" prong [4])? When I said that a criminal law has "significantly less DDOSing potential", I meant that (even lone) frivolous lawsuits can impose a massive burden on legal speech, like in the case of SLAPP suits [5]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43784936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43784936 [2] https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single [3] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/why-i-emphatically-oppose-online-age-verification-mandates.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/why-i-emphatic... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
  - gosub100 1y ago
    I think your viewpoint lacks awareness of diverse groups that may be sensitive to certain types of content. If you distribute works that disrupt the mind of a child, this bill allows parents to seek relief. I think that's a good thing. You can still peddle the offensive material but require ID to view it.