Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xy | Hacker News Reader

Can you point to the part of the bill that doesn't protect speech they don't approve of? I'm aware the UK Labour Party is in favor of censorship of disapproved topics [1], but I couldn't see any in this bill.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/11/labour-to-vote...

View on HN

> Can you point to the part of the bill that doesn't protect speech they don't approve of?

Pornography is speech - and the age verification provisions effectively mean any non-mass scale platform in the UK will have to remove all adult content because the costs of age verifying every visitor are insane.

What does the bill protect in there?

I think there is a widely accepted view that children have limited rights, that may include free speech - porn included. They have no right to vote in all countries, no right to drink in most, no right to own guns (looking at USA mainly), so a limit on free speech does not look like a new approach to children's rights.

I think he is getting at this part "non-mass scale platform." He's implying it only protects the big players that can afford the change.

Do you think everything in this world should be doable as a mom and pop business? I don't. For example, I wouldn't want a moon-lighter handling my medical records, or my money accounts and credit cards. We have many examples where limiting who can work in certain spaces has become reasonable.

While this is generally true for any regulation ... for small businesses we do have one approach to address the problem of regulatory compliance: outsourcing to specialized firms. For example small sites can just use an identity provider (maybe something like AuthO presuming they add an age-verification module) which can be easily integrated.

>Pornography is speech

How did we get to this point? I assure you the idea that porn is speech is not an idea that the even liberal Brits would agree with.

Eh, actually, stuff like Ulysses was considered pornography at one point.

The point is, if you let the state draw the line on what is and isn't allowed speech, they'll draw it where it is convenient for them.

In US, it was when attempts by the courts to define what distinguishes protected speech from obscenity ended up with the judge proclaiming, "I know it when I see it" (i.e. there was no clear articulable standard).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com