Hacker News Reader

Comment by fc417fc802 | Hacker News Reader

The difference is one of redressing a concrete dysfunction. Libraries or the local bookstore or whoever aren't trying to sneak into your home, onto your child's school bus, into your child's classroom, while pushing various extremist publications purely for their own profit (ie "engagement"). We do in fact have zoning laws - I can't inadvertently encounter a strip club in a quiet residential area. Meanwhile it's commonplace for children to carry a network terminal around with them with which one can readily access the equivalent of things far worse than that.

What I've described does not restrict one's ability to speak freely. It is most similar to an impressum except it bears no identifying mark thus poses no hazard to anonymous speech.

View on HN

Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany.

Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking.

“Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amendment, assuming you can get enough people to agree with your assessment.

You're just vaguely waving towards the first amendment. That's not a cohesive argument in and of itself.

By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. After all, they both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech).

> Impressums cannot be required in the US

Yes but why can't they be required? My (quite possibly flawed) understanding was that SCOTUS previously established that publishing without attribution could not directly be outlawed, recognizing the ability to speak anonymously as an important aspect of political speech. What I have described does not run afoul of that. It neither restricts one's ability to speak nor provides for any form of attribution.

> “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights

Regardless of either your or my personal opinion SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights when a compelling need is presented and the remedy is sufficiently targeted. That said, I don't believe that what I described infringes on the first amendment to begin with so your point is doubly moot.

> By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here.

Now you’re getting it. Throw them all out along with the idiots who passed the laws.

> Yes but why can't they be required?

The Court has interpreted compelled speech to be almost universally a violation of the First Amendment, outside of the courtroom. I tend to agree. “Shall make no law” is a strong statement.

> SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights

Prior courts. The present Court seems to be (rightly) rolling back both judicially-granted overexpansion of rights and exceptions to rights, although this is a slow process.

We have to stop relying on the courts to grant new rights and/or exemptions to rights. Passing unconstitutional bills and hoping for a favorable interpretation is clearly not the intended process, yet it’s become increasingly common.

We need to figure out how to pass amendments again or we are going to lose our republic. (It may already be too late due to an out of control executive and corrupt Congress, but that’s another matter.)

I don't think you're giving fair treatment to the complexity of the issue at hand. When SCOTUS came out in favor of anonymous political speech I do not understand it to have been on the basis of forced speech.

We require for example nutrition labels on food products. So clearly metadata of various sorts can be required for an interaction within the marketplace if there's a good enough reason for it. I'm not sure where that leaves personal blogs but it certainly applies to Amazon and PornHub.

The present court is rolling back some things but certainly not all. From the very beginning constitutional rights have never been absolute. One of the basic principles that comes up repeatedly and supersedes almost everything else is that the government must be able to carry out its duties. The contention is generally whether something is truly necessary for that and if so whether the law in question is overly broad.

> So clearly metadata of various sorts can be required for an interaction within the marketplace if there's a good enough reason for it.

Marketplace being the key word here. Interstate commerce may be regulated.

> I'm not sure where that leaves personal blogs but it certainly applies to Amazon and PornHub.

That’s the point. I also care about restrictions on smaller businesses and want to prevent regulatory capture, but personal/nonprofit/community sites must not be burdened above all else. They face enough challenges as it is. If a website or software project is noncommercial, their speech is not subject to regulation, Constitutionally speaking. What’s more, the Constitution has the correct take here—this is as it should be.

> One of the basic principles that comes up repeatedly and supersedes almost everything else is that the government must be able to carry out its duties.

Then you get the question, what are its duties? Enforcing unconstitutional laws is not one of them.

Fine allow any text through, kids can use whatever gopher site they like.

Regulations on speaking to children have ample precident. We rate movies and age-gate admittance, we don't allow children into liquor stores, strip clubs, or adult bookstores. None of those things violate the First Amendment.

> We rate movies

“We” (as in the US government) do not do this. There is not, nor can there be, a law requiring such rating.

> we don't allow children into liquor stores, strip clubs, or adult bookstores

These are physical stores/venues, not written speech. “We” do not restrict authors from writing adult books that may or may not be seen by children, nor do we require that the books are labeled as such.

If you want to restrict speech, pass an amendment. That is the allowable path.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com