6 ms·

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

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).

echelon 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > 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.
  - j-bos 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      > 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.
      - shkkmo 10mo ago
        > 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 10mo ago
        You forgot “houses” there, boss.
        shkkmo 10mo ago
        Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.
        irishcoffee 10mo ago
        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.
  - GeekyBear 10mo ago
    > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 Clearly, those protections have already been violated.
    - WarOnPrivacy 10mo ago
      > 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 10mo ago
      >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?
    - codersfocus 10mo ago
      You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
      - fc417fc802 10mo ago
        But in the absence of a warrant it _ought_ to be.
- nunez 10mo ago
  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.)
jandrewrogers 10mo ago
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.
- amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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.
    - mothballed 10mo ago
      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.
      - wqaatwt 10mo ago
        > since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) Wasn’t it the other way around? E.g. the fir amendment was pretty much ignored (barely a guideline) by everyone almost until the 1900s. Even the founders themselves discarded it almost entirely just a few years after the constitution was ratified..
emptysongglass 10mo ago
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.
robkop 10mo ago
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 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
- dmurray 10mo ago
  I would read your summaries of legal precedents again, ahead of lots of people who AAL.
  - monocularvision 10mo ago
    Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis.
    - cmptrnerd6 10mo ago
      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.
selinkocalar 10mo ago
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.
- shostack 10mo ago
  That feels like a feature and not a bug given the way some of this stuff is heading.
  - DANmode 10mo ago
    Don’t let it.
- Forgeties79 10mo ago
  LinkedIn’s verification is maddening
  - lostlogin 10mo ago
    LinkedIn is maddening. If you make the mistake of signing up, it takes years to escape their spam and bs.
    - toast0 10mo ago
      I got years of their spam without signing up. Only after several years did they add a way to opt out an email address without making an account.
      - fc417fc802 10mo ago
        If they don't provide an easy opt-out link then why not just block the sender and move on? Unlike the less legal operations I wouldn't expect a legitimate business to rotate domains or otherwise attempt to evade blocks.
        10mo ago
The_President 10mo ago
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.
- mjd 10mo ago
  Have you read the opinion?
  - The_President 10mo ago
    Yes and I am addressing the quoted remark above which stands out.
- lmz 10mo ago
  With that argument you could argue for age gating wifi access and mobile data.
  - The_President 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        I should have contacted you, Refreeze98, prior to posting my comment that contained far less of an abstraction than you've condescendingly supplemented.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
knodi123 10mo ago
> "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.
- killingtime74 10mo ago
  Yes, first amendment is not absolute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - CrossVR 10mo ago
    Only the second one is absolute for some reason.
    - fc417fc802 10mo ago
      Far from it, but I'd rather not drag things so severely off topic. I'll just point out that you used to be able to mail order some surprising (at least by modern sensibilities) stuff.
    - tt24 10mo ago
      Interesting, you think the second amendment is absolute? Can you elaborate on that?
- akerl_ 10mo ago
  This is the difference between standing on a street corner shouting "shit" and taking a shit on a street corner. The court is generally pretty adept at navigating the difference between "a bookstore that has some spicy books" and "a sex shop that has some non-spicy books".
  - jaco6 10mo ago
    Bookstores that carry porn are porn shops. Apps that carry porn are porn shops, and since the app store has apps that carry porn, the app store is a porn shop.
paulddraper 10mo ago
That is exactly the case for movies, yes? Movie theatres require a chaperon for minors for R rated films? (And theatres often block some ages entirely.)
- heavyset_go 10mo ago
  There is no law mandating this, theaters self-regulated. Movies don't have to be rated and anyone can watch them, as per the law. That's a fundamental difference than the heavy handed approach of using the state to mandate KYC laws to post on the internet.
zkmon 10mo ago
Judges are struggling to find the analogies known to them from the world of 70's. Apps are not like books only. They are like movies, sports, tools, postal mailbox, pet, friend, bank, money, shop, cab and anything you can imagine. When movies require age-restriction, apps can do so too.
- tremon 10mo ago
  And which movies, when broadcast on TV (i.e. viewed inside people's homes), verify the age of everyone watching before continuing? Your analogy is just as flawed.
  - mikkupikku 10mo ago
    When movies are broadcast on TV, they must first be censored according to the FCC's rules. Of course this only applies to broadcast, not cable, but cable doesn't get broadcast into people's houses without them signing up for it.
    - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
      > cable doesn't get broadcast into people's houses without them signing up for it Neither do apps, so it seems apps over an ISP are more equivalent to adult content on cable tv, which do not require age verification to watch.
pipes 10mo ago
As a UK subject, with a government that has begun implementing the online safety act, prosecuting people for tweets that clearly weren't inciting violence and getting rid of jury trials for cases with fewer than five years sentences, I look on with envy at your constitutional protections of the individual.
- piekvorst 10mo ago
  American constitution is underappreciated. It ensures peace but faces profoundly undeserved hatred in return.
- owisd 10mo ago
  The problem interpreting the intent of that tweet is that Lucy Connolly herself admitted to authorities she was inciting violence so becomes hard to build a defence at that point. Incitement isn’t first amendment protected in the US either https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2101.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
  - pipes 10mo ago
    I should be clearer and provide references etc, I was refering to this: https://freespeechunion.org/labour-reported-me-for-racial-hatred-a-jury-cleared-me-in-less-than-20-minutes/?v=7885444af42e https://freespeechunion.org/labour-reported-me-for-racial-ha... The major part of this case is that without a jury trial he'd probably have had zero chance of being cleared. Countless others were persuaded to plead guilty to avoid a long time in prison and then were given long sentences. h he was strong enough not to give in. You are right, freedom of expression in the US doesn't cover inciting violence, but it has an high bar, imminent lawless action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Yes in Lucy Connolly's case she admitted to inciting violence, though I'm not certain what she did justifies a 31 month sentence.
TimByte 10mo ago
Age gates at the App Store level aren't a narrow restriction, they're a universal checkpoint
Waterluvian 10mo ago
This protection is not provided by judges or the Bill of Rights. It’s provided by the attitude and behaviours of all Americans. If enough Americans start treating 1A as conditional, the court decisions will slowly start reflecting that. The system won’t protect the people from themselves.
- morshu9001 10mo ago
  Yeah, but slowly is an understatement. Scotus judges serve until death, and they're appointed rather than elected. Even then, they're allowed to make very unpopular decisions.
- IAmBroom 10mo ago
  That presumes that SCOTUS represents the "general" attitudes of all Americans. But when they overturned Roe v. Wade, they explicitly went against the majority consensus of Americans. General != majority, but SCOTUS is not a gauge of American opinion. Perhaps a better example is Brown v. Board of Education, at a time when a very large portion of the public was not in favor of integrating the races in public schools. TL;DR: Protection is absolutely provided by the courts, which is the highest authority on what the Constitution (and Amendments) and other laws mean.
dnautics 10mo ago
Not defending the law but questioning your interpretation. Does requiring by law an age of 21 to enter a bar violate freedom of assembly? Lots of important political events and discussion historically in the US have occurred at taverns.
- IAmBroom 10mo ago
  "Have occurred" probably mostly includes incidents before children were legally forbidden from bars. The 21yo limitation as a uniform restriction only dates back to circa 1980s.

echelon 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
> 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.
- j-bos 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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.
    - shkkmo 10mo ago
      > 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 10mo ago
        You forgot “houses” there, boss.
        shkkmo 10mo ago
        Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous.
        irishcoffee 10mo ago
        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.
- GeekyBear 10mo ago
  > 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 Clearly, those protections have already been violated.
  - WarOnPrivacy 10mo ago
    > 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 10mo ago
    >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?
  - codersfocus 10mo ago
    You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
    - fc417fc802 10mo ago
      But in the absence of a warrant it _ought_ to be.
nunez 10mo ago
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.)

jandrewrogers 10mo ago

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.

amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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.
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    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.
    - wqaatwt 10mo ago
      > since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) Wasn’t it the other way around? E.g. the fir amendment was pretty much ignored (barely a guideline) by everyone almost until the 1900s. Even the founders themselves discarded it almost entirely just a few years after the constitution was ratified..

emptysongglass 10mo ago

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.

robkop 10mo ago

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 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

dmurray 10mo ago
I would read your summaries of legal precedents again, ahead of lots of people who AAL.
- monocularvision 10mo ago
  Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis.
  - cmptrnerd6 10mo ago
    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.

selinkocalar 10mo ago

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.

shostack 10mo ago
That feels like a feature and not a bug given the way some of this stuff is heading.
- DANmode 10mo ago
  Don’t let it.
Forgeties79 10mo ago
LinkedIn’s verification is maddening
- lostlogin 10mo ago
  LinkedIn is maddening. If you make the mistake of signing up, it takes years to escape their spam and bs.
  - toast0 10mo ago
    I got years of their spam without signing up. Only after several years did they add a way to opt out an email address without making an account.
    - fc417fc802 10mo ago
      If they don't provide an easy opt-out link then why not just block the sender and move on? Unlike the less legal operations I wouldn't expect a legitimate business to rotate domains or otherwise attempt to evade blocks.
      - 10mo ago

The_President 10mo ago

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.

mjd 10mo ago
Have you read the opinion?
- The_President 10mo ago
  Yes and I am addressing the quoted remark above which stands out.
lmz 10mo ago
With that argument you could argue for age gating wifi access and mobile data.
- The_President 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      I should have contacted you, Refreeze98, prior to posting my comment that contained far less of an abstraction than you've condescendingly supplemented.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

knodi123 10mo ago

> "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.

killingtime74 10mo ago
Yes, first amendment is not absolute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- CrossVR 10mo ago
  Only the second one is absolute for some reason.
  - fc417fc802 10mo ago
    Far from it, but I'd rather not drag things so severely off topic. I'll just point out that you used to be able to mail order some surprising (at least by modern sensibilities) stuff.
  - tt24 10mo ago
    Interesting, you think the second amendment is absolute? Can you elaborate on that?
akerl_ 10mo ago
This is the difference between standing on a street corner shouting "shit" and taking a shit on a street corner. The court is generally pretty adept at navigating the difference between "a bookstore that has some spicy books" and "a sex shop that has some non-spicy books".
- jaco6 10mo ago
  Bookstores that carry porn are porn shops. Apps that carry porn are porn shops, and since the app store has apps that carry porn, the app store is a porn shop.

paulddraper 10mo ago

That is exactly the case for movies, yes? Movie theatres require a chaperon for minors for R rated films? (And theatres often block some ages entirely.)

heavyset_go 10mo ago
There is no law mandating this, theaters self-regulated. Movies don't have to be rated and anyone can watch them, as per the law. That's a fundamental difference than the heavy handed approach of using the state to mandate KYC laws to post on the internet.

zkmon 10mo ago

Judges are struggling to find the analogies known to them from the world of 70's. Apps are not like books only. They are like movies, sports, tools, postal mailbox, pet, friend, bank, money, shop, cab and anything you can imagine. When movies require age-restriction, apps can do so too.

tremon 10mo ago
And which movies, when broadcast on TV (i.e. viewed inside people's homes), verify the age of everyone watching before continuing? Your analogy is just as flawed.
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  When movies are broadcast on TV, they must first be censored according to the FCC's rules. Of course this only applies to broadcast, not cable, but cable doesn't get broadcast into people's houses without them signing up for it.
  - ImPostingOnHN 10mo ago
    > cable doesn't get broadcast into people's houses without them signing up for it Neither do apps, so it seems apps over an ISP are more equivalent to adult content on cable tv, which do not require age verification to watch.

pipes 10mo ago

As a UK subject, with a government that has begun implementing the online safety act, prosecuting people for tweets that clearly weren't inciting violence and getting rid of jury trials for cases with fewer than five years sentences, I look on with envy at your constitutional protections of the individual.

piekvorst 10mo ago
American constitution is underappreciated. It ensures peace but faces profoundly undeserved hatred in return.
owisd 10mo ago
The problem interpreting the intent of that tweet is that Lucy Connolly herself admitted to authorities she was inciting violence so becomes hard to build a defence at that point. Incitement isn’t first amendment protected in the US either https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2101.html https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
- pipes 10mo ago
  I should be clearer and provide references etc, I was refering to this: https://freespeechunion.org/labour-reported-me-for-racial-hatred-a-jury-cleared-me-in-less-than-20-minutes/?v=7885444af42e https://freespeechunion.org/labour-reported-me-for-racial-ha... The major part of this case is that without a jury trial he'd probably have had zero chance of being cleared. Countless others were persuaded to plead guilty to avoid a long time in prison and then were given long sentences. h he was strong enough not to give in. You are right, freedom of expression in the US doesn't cover inciting violence, but it has an high bar, imminent lawless action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Yes in Lucy Connolly's case she admitted to inciting violence, though I'm not certain what she did justifies a 31 month sentence.

TimByte 10mo ago

Age gates at the App Store level aren't a narrow restriction, they're a universal checkpoint

Waterluvian 10mo ago

This protection is not provided by judges or the Bill of Rights. It’s provided by the attitude and behaviours of all Americans. If enough Americans start treating 1A as conditional, the court decisions will slowly start reflecting that. The system won’t protect the people from themselves.

morshu9001 10mo ago
Yeah, but slowly is an understatement. Scotus judges serve until death, and they're appointed rather than elected. Even then, they're allowed to make very unpopular decisions.
IAmBroom 10mo ago
That presumes that SCOTUS represents the "general" attitudes of all Americans. But when they overturned Roe v. Wade, they explicitly went against the majority consensus of Americans. General != majority, but SCOTUS is not a gauge of American opinion. Perhaps a better example is Brown v. Board of Education, at a time when a very large portion of the public was not in favor of integrating the races in public schools. TL;DR: Protection is absolutely provided by the courts, which is the highest authority on what the Constitution (and Amendments) and other laws mean.

dnautics 10mo ago

Not defending the law but questioning your interpretation. Does requiring by law an age of 21 to enter a bar violate freedom of assembly? Lots of important political events and discussion historically in the US have occurred at taverns.

IAmBroom 10mo ago
"Have occurred" probably mostly includes incidents before children were legally forbidden from bars. The 21yo limitation as a uniform restriction only dates back to circa 1980s.