Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemo44x | Hacker News Reader

> This also isn't negative for free speech as a value

Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value". It isn't something we strive for; it is a basic right.

Things like film ratings are not legally biding for example. The industry took it upon themselves to create ratings as guidelines to parents.

> - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this.

As for alcohol - purchasing alcohol isn't a protected right and not analogous to speech at all.

View on HN

Free speech is only a right as far as the constitution guarantees (which is limited). Personally I’d like US culture to fully embrace the value of free speech, but support for it generally depends on if your favorite political party is in power.

If we truly valued free speech we would not have all this debate over censorship.

The Bill of Rights is a list of God given rights the government CANNOT take away from you, not something they give you.

In self rule, The goverment is us. We can take away any part of the bill of rights that we see fit, with a new amendment

Fascinating how God did not appear to intervene in the preceding 100 centuries of government taking away exactly those rights.

  "Free speech is a right in the USA, not a "value"."

Speech on someone's private platform isn't a right, it's a privilege that they're choosing to extend to you. That's why in this instance, this ID verification law is merely protecting the ethical value and culture of free speech, not the legal right to do so which remains unchanged. It's a shame we don't have separate terms for the legal right of free speech and cultural value of free speech, since it's easy to confuse the two.

  "As for alcohol - purchasing alcohol isn't a protected right and not analogous to speech at all."

I hadn't thought of the angle that banning kids off social media was effectively a government restriction of free speech. Interesting perspective! Any 1A afficianados want to provide commentary here?

The parents comment was with regard to passing laws restricting access to or dissemination of speech on social media websites. That was the context of my response. If FB wants to implement age restrictions then that is their prerogative. But the government has no authority in this private matter. Their recent foray into a new “kids insta” leads me to believe FB is not interested in limiting their most profitable growth segment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com