6 ms·

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

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..
  - etchalon 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
        mothballed 10mo ago
        The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."
        etchalon 10mo ago
        The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.
        mothballed 10mo ago
- lovich 10mo ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
  - startupsfail 10mo ago
    It used to be worse, back in the days. See that case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy
irishcoffee 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. 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 10mo ago
  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.
  - irishcoffee 10mo ago
    > 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 10mo ago
      > 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_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
WarOnPrivacy 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. 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.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
jibal 10mo ago
> 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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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.
    - catlikesshrimp 10mo ago
      "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 10mo ago
        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.
GeekyBear 10mo ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
Zak 10mo ago
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 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..
- etchalon 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
      - mothballed 10mo ago
        The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."
        etchalon 10mo ago
        The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.
        mothballed 10mo ago
lovich 10mo ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
- startupsfail 10mo ago
  It used to be worse, back in the days. See that case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy

irishcoffee 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. 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 10mo ago
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.
- irishcoffee 10mo ago
  > 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 10mo ago
    > 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_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

WarOnPrivacy 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. 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.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

jibal 10mo ago

> 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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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.
  - catlikesshrimp 10mo ago
    "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 10mo ago
      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.

GeekyBear 10mo ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Zak 10mo ago

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.