Hacker News Reader

The Clinton admin tried an "ID everyone to access the site" law federally back in the 90s as part of Clinton/Gore's attempt to censor the internet and it got knocked down for constitutionality concerns.

Is CA just relying on the crunchy state politics plus the right-biased SCOTUS to pass this with no challenge?

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

View on HN

You can't really compare the 90s to today. Kids weren't online 24/7 through smartphones. Cyber bullying and sexting were unknowns.

Why wouldn't a left-biased SCOTUS also bless things a left-biased legislature wants? I'm inclined to believe that the makeup of the SCOTUS wouldn't make that much difference in a case about this.

Scalia, while genuinely a bad person, would never have gone for this, and he was certainly on the right.

That's almost certainly true of Scalia. He who spearheaded the "federalism revolution" right up until a case about drugs came up, then he did an abrupt 180 on that in Raich.

But it's likely not true of Thomas. Is it true of the rest? Who knows. The liberals might well side with California's liberal government. Hard to say. Even if that would surprise you, Scalia's turn in Raich surprised many. It's hard to predict the SCOTUS' decisions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com