Hacker News Reader

Comment by hgsgm | Hacker News Reader

Why should an alcohol vendor be responsible for not selling booze to children?

Are you arguing that booze is protected speech?

I think the comment is pretending to argue using the same logic as its parent comment uses, but about something the parent commenter would find normal and palatable, as a way of drawing an analogy.

Are you arguing allowing children to view sexual acts is legally protected? Should we open up strip clubs and brothels for kids?

> Are you arguing allowing children to view sexual acts is legally protected?

Yes. I'm pretty sure the entire reason porn is legal is it's considered a 1FA issue in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...

US free speech law is weird in that even fairly innocuous sexual content is "obviously not speech" for 1A purposes but overt threats of violence, calls for genocide, blood libel, holocaust denial etc are "not obscene".

> US free speech law is weird in that even fairly innocuous sexual content is "obviously not speech"

This really isn't true. See the Miller test[1], and in that same Wikipedia article, the example of adult content (in Utah!) being found not obscene.

Christian nationalists like to use "pornography" and "obscenity" interchangeably as rhetorical positioning, but I am hard pressed to think of a case where innocuous sexual content was held to be obscene and therefore not protected speech.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

I was going to type out lengthy post educating you on the first amendment, content-based restrictions on speech, strict scrutiny, and responsible parenting.

But then I was struck by the absurdity of good-faith engagement with someone who equates a de facto ban on adults enjoying pornography with bordellos for children.

I hope you find peace and learn to accept yourself before you harm too many others in the name of whatever it is you hate so much about your own character.

Don't gaslight me. You know good and well children aren't allowed the benefits of amendments. There is no ban on adults enjoying anything here, you're gaslighting. This is specifically about underage children, ya know the ones that legally aren't adults.

Maybe you ought to realize they're more important than your narcissistic behaviors? I'm so sick of this current generation of adults not being able to grow up and put the next generation before their own selfish interests.

The ban on speech affects those who are speaking. You're trying to turn it around to be about who is listening. That would be gaslighting, which you throw around so triumphantly.

I'm really sorry for whatever happened to you. Please don't perpetuate it.

The liquor license rules that the vendor applied for (and received) requires them to.

1FA issues get trumped by secondary agreements you agreed to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com