4 ms·

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

by senshan 10mo ago

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.

ls612 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > 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.
  - ls612 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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.
  - The_President 10mo ago
    "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.
shkkmo 10mo ago
> 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.
heavyset_go 10mo ago
There is no law that mandates age verification for movies, any type of rating, or preventing anyone from watching any movie. The MPAA rating system and adhering to it is completely voluntary.

by senshan 10mo ago

ls612 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
> 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.
- ls612 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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.
- The_President 10mo ago
  "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.

shkkmo 10mo ago

> 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.

heavyset_go 10mo ago

There is no law that mandates age verification for movies, any type of rating, or preventing anyone from watching any movie. The MPAA rating system and adhering to it is completely voluntary.