this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1156 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59038 readers
4507 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think a law verifying your age over the internet inherently breaks the idea of a free internet, of which we are already seeing degradation of by Google and DRM/web integrity anyways.
I don't see how it doesn't violate free speech. Imagine needing the government's permission to talk to someone?
Edit: forgot a word
I agree. Even internet security protocols are at risk, and the dinosaurs responsible for writing laws don’t understand basic encryption let alone the idea that it is 100% a needed concept in a free, fair, and just society.
There are already age limitations that are constitutional. You can’t run for office, buy alcohol, drive a car etc.
That's not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it's in the publics best interest and doesn't put too much burden on the public.
Restricting access to explicit material is the same as restricting alcohol or tobacco.
Tobacco is not speech.
Edit: plus one is an economic regulation .The other is not. Like, you can smoke tobacco at really any age. Just can buy it at any age.
Possession is illegal in a majority of states
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0269.htm
You're still ignoring my first point which is the much more important distinction. It's not speech.
It’s not a free speech issue.
The literal lawsuit says otherwise. It's the first claim they wrote.
I have my doubts it’ll succeed on free speech arguments alone.
I have my doubts that people should comment on things they clearly haven't read, but here we are.
That was broken decades ago.
today couldn't have happened if yesterday's degradation didn't occur. it's been slowly breaking for a while now.