Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[PogiJones]

I’m also not fan banning social media, but I feel some people really need a huge internet detox, probably most of the trans community.

I don't consider an age restriction a ban. Cigarettes aren't banned, driving isn't banned, porn isn't banned, alcohol isn't banned. Not in the common meaning of the word, anyway. A kid's first amendment rights aren't violated by saying, "Pornhub, you can't let minors in."

[NekoFever]

User banned (3 days): inflammatory accusations

Also Jack Thompson. We got a bunch of his acolytes here

I like how they’re self-aware enough to spot what this user is getting at.

[benji]

I don't consider an age restriction a ban. Cigarettes aren't banned, driving isn't banned, porn isn't banned, alcohol isn't banned. Not in the common meaning of the word, anyway. A kid's first amendment rights aren't violated by saying, "Pornhub, you can't let minors in."

No, but it does violate all us adult*'s rights to make us confirm our identity to engage in speech. That's why it's been found unconstitutional.

*by legal fiat, not personal development

[PogiJones]

I don't consider an age restriction a ban. Cigarettes aren't banned, driving isn't banned, porn isn't banned, alcohol isn't banned. Not in the common meaning of the word, anyway. A kid's first amendment rights aren't violated by saying, "Pornhub, you can't let minors in."

No, but it does violate all us adult*'s rights to make us confirm our identity to engage in speech. That's why it's been found unconstitutional.

*by legal fiat, not personal development

Interesting. What case is that?

[benji]

Interesting. What case is that?

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

There was an earlier case regarding child pornography that was similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

The video game ruling is also relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

The counterargument traces back to a case where the Dissent is now typically treated as the "correct" opinion even though the majority has not been explicitly overturned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg_v._New_York

[benji]

I'll also point out that B-Dubs reply I quoted above is, as typical, wrong. Terms of Service saying "no kids" would not protect you in the slightest, ResetERA.com would be liable for confirming their users ages.

The COPPA system works the way it does (you just claiming you're not 13 or younger) because not only was there no enforcement mechanism, the rest of the regulation was struck down. You aren't liable for anything if you don't have that on your website.

[AldusMoneyPenny]

Waiting on Melody Shreds' Cartman moment in the Florida capitol to get this thrown out

[Daffy Duck]

daffyduck mentioned no women


now lokiduck shows up

That user getting a ban when they read this

[benji]

Waiting on Melody Shreds' Cartman moment in the Florida capitol to get this thrown out

I'm skeptical they're this good of actor, rhetorician or singer.

[benji]

social media should be age gated. Sure, there are problems like how we define social media, etc. but without a doubt social media is net negative for children. Shouldn't be just one state doing it for all the wrong reasons, since they will probably cause more harm for the idea.

The net negative you say is all the queer and trans kids state wide. What do they do?

Your in favor of shutting off queer kids from everyone except their immediate and potentially harmful peers and unaccepting parents?

Hate to be like "the straights don't get it" but the straights don't get it.

yeeuuup

I also want to make the point that while the focus is rightfully on the acute and immediate issue of queer and trans kids needing those online communities as refuge and education apart from their repressive environments, we need the straight kids to have that exposure too. We need to be visible in a safe way so the majority sees us. Otherwise these kids are even more susceptible to the propaganda they are immersed in. While the queer kids they might know in day to day life are, if they can pass, keeping their heads down for self-preservation, the majority of kids will be falling for the idea that gay and trans people don't actually exist. Being the minority, we need some of the majority to be allies and vote for us to have equality and safety, and for that we need to be real to them in their own experience, even if only online.

Hate to be like "the straights don't get it" but the straights don't get it.

Of course we don't. "Fuck you, got mine" comes for everyone eventually.

Yeah. Without social media and the internet, I wouldn't be here. And without social media, alot of kids would be trapped in abusive households with zero support networks.

Reset the "days without cis nonsense" clock!

Even if I thought this was a good idea, I have zero trust and faith in Republicans to actually be able to legislate this fairly and effectively. As an even less nuanced example, I, the person who has created multiple threads for the AVN Awards, believe that it should be harder for children to access online pornography. But conservatives/Republicans have been beating the ban pornography/implement age verification drum for over a decade at this point and still haven't come up with a useful or meaningful way to actually do what they keep saying they want to do.

What actually needs to be done is create spaces explicitely for children.

Seems like a backdoor way of forcing everyone to provide personally identifiable information to every website they use. If you believe this is being done solely to protect minors I've got a bridge to sell you.

You see good move, I see just another angle for the GOP to control the internet, soon adults will have to scan their DL or state ID just to use the internet, GOP wants to control all aspects of human life similar to the communist party in China, in 10 years I won't be able to go online and simply call out my favorite sports team being for trash, or say this game is horrible.

Sinophobia.

It's the GOP doing this, specifically Florida's GOP. They don't have good intentions here.

This is just going to isolate minorities living there even more than they already are and amplify their feelings of being unwanted and lonely. I'm worried about them, especially those that are surrounded by family that doesn't accept them and/or peers that hate them. And the assholes damn well know that too because suppressing and controlling people that aren't like them (i.e. minorities) is their favorite thing to do. This would just be yet another way for them to do that.

[PogiJones]

Interesting. What case is that?

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

There was an earlier case regarding child pornography that was similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

The video game ruling is also relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

The counterargument traces back to a case where the Dissent is now typically treated as the "correct" opinion even though the majority has not been explicitly overturned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg_v._New_York

I'm not sure those say what you claimed they said. I admit I only read the wikipedia articles, not the opinions themselves, but those all seem to be content-based restrictions, referring to the Miller test, obscenity, etc. Content-agnostic restrictions (such as forum restrictions) have often been found to be constitutional, as they aren't restricting a particular idea or opinion or image, etc. I could see a social media age restriction being found to be constitutional, so long as a court determines that social media constitutes a forum rather than a type of speech itself. And the negative effects of social media on kids are far, far more well-established than those of violent video games, so even in terms of speech itself, the compelling state interest should be easier to show than in the Brown v EMA case.

If the opinion itself says "Age checks violate adults' 1A rights," lmk, I'm willing to be wrong. I didn't see it in the wikipedia summary, though.

[benji]

I'm not sure those say what you claimed they said. I admit I only read the wikipedia articles, not the opinions themselves, but those all seem to be content-based restrictions, referring to the Miller test, obscenity, etc. Content-agnostic restrictions (such as forum restrictions) have often been found to be constitutional, as they aren't restricting a particular idea or opinion or image, etc. I could see a social media age restriction being found to be constitutional, so long as a court determines that social media constitutes a forum rather than a type of speech itself. And the negative effects of social media on kids are far, far more well-established than those of violent video games, so even in terms of speech itself, the compelling state interest should be easier to show than in the Brown v EMA case.

If the opinion itself says "Age checks violate adults' 1A rights," lmk, I'm willing to be wrong. I didn't see it in the wikipedia summary, though.

The court also found that COPA did not pass the strict scrutiny test for governmental speech regulations, because while preventing children from accessing harmful material on the Internet was a compelling government interest, the statute was not narrowly tailored enough to enable other users, including consenting adults, to access such material voluntarily, and (given the availability of filtering software) the statute was not the least restrictive means of achieving the government's goals.

This kills it because you can't mandate people install filtering software.

I could see a social media age restriction being found to be constitutional, so long as a court determines that social media constitutes a forum rather than a type of speech itself. 

This would be highly unconstitutional.

[PogiJones]

Yeah, I read that part. That doesn't say there was an age-check and that the age-check violated their 1A rights. Again, maybe in the opinion it does.

[benji]

How else would you restrict content from minors than an age-check?

[PogiJones]

I could see a social media age restriction being found to be constitutional, so long as a court determines that social media constitutes a forum rather than a type of speech itself. 

This would be highly unconstitutional.

The Court has distinguished content-based laws from content-neutral laws, while acknowledging that deciding whether a particular law “is content based or content neutral is not always a simple task.” 1 A content-neutral law that imposes only an incidental burden on speech “will be sustained if ‘it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.’” 2 Similarly, the government “may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’” 3

[benji]

Time, place and manner restrictions do not apply to private property*, especially not effectively non-scarce private property. Michigan can't tell me what legal content I have to erase from The Bire and it can't tell me it's illegal for that otherwise legal content to exist if a hypothetical minor could see it. This would allow the state to eliminate any speech it wants entirely. That's why there were basically no dissents in Ashcroft from a less pro-free-speech court.

*Except in very narrow conditions involving "public" spaces like malls.

[Besticus Maximus]

Americans 

[benji]

You'll be fleeing here when Labour makes Joanne the new monarch!

[PogiJones]

Time, place and manner restrictions do not apply to private property*, especially not effectively non-scarce private property. Michigan can't tell me what legal content I have to erase from The Bire and it can't tell me it's illegal for that otherwise legal content to exist if a hypothetical minor could see it. This would allow the state to eliminate any speech it wants entirely. That's why there were basically no dissents in Ashcroft.

*Except in very narrow conditions involving "public" spaces like malls.

There were two opinions of Ashcroft, and the one you quoted was from the second opinion, which was decided 5-4, and was explicitly about content-based speech regulations:

When plaintiffs challenge a content-based speech restriction, the Government has the burden to prove that the proposed alternatives will not be as effective as the challenged statute. Ibid.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. You might be right that it will be struck down. The only thing I think you're wrong about is how inevitable you're claiming the outcome to be.

[Eric Cartman]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/indiana-jones-and-the-great-circle-is-confirmed-to-be-first-person-with-third-person-mixed-releasing-late-2024.806934/

PlanetSmasher:

My disappointment is immense and my day is ruined. But at least now I can check this game off my list of upcoming releases I was vaguely interested in, so that's a plus. One less thing to worry about.

EDIT: In case you're curious, I can't do immersive first-person games for migraine/health reasons.

Are you ever happy with a game? lol

Hey, if you were an expert in literally every field ever like comedysmasher is, you'd get sick of all these so-called 'professionals' fucking things uo by doing a half assed job that you woulda done better while watching a 4 hour youtube video essay too

[benji]

I would never claim anything is inevitable, I'm just saying what the precedent is with every lower court holding to it since. The Supreme Court can always override itself but the current makeup of the Court is more pro-rights than the one that made the decision. Scalia was the only one who dissented on the community standards matter, but Miller has been shot full of holes after the Roberts Court said crush videos weren't obscene. It'd be fairly shocking if the Court said any community in the country can control access to the Internet on the basis of legal content.

[Eric Cartman]

Isn't it weird how they love to frame things around tiny edge cases but then dismiss detransitioners by saying that it's just a small amount?

its their usual rhetorical 3 card monty*, where you think the argument you're addressing is under one hand, and we're talking personal freedoms on how they want to live which shouldn't be imposed on people, but nope, flick of the wrist and you're now talking about medical issues, and how they can affect peoples health and even life, but start talking about regulating like any other healthcare is and *flip* back to cultural freedoms to express yourself that shouldn't be regulated or even have any oversight.

"My dog has 4 legs"
"My cat has 4 legs, are you calling my cat a dog you utter piece of shit?"
"Some dogs only have 3 or less legs, are they not dogs anymore then you fucking asshole?"

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

*also known as 'find the lady'

[Eric Cartman]

Are these people fucking allergic to first person shooters now?
https://www.resetera.com/threads/indiana-jones-and-the-great-circle-is-confirmed-to-be-first-person-with-third-person-mixed-releasing-late-2024.806934/post-117811845

Fair enough. I remember reading a report about how health issues associated with first person shooters were on the rise, especially amongst children. But maybe it is still marginal.

Oh, god, this is terrible, we really need to make big AAA games third person only

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

and playstation exclusive

for the sake of the children that I care deeply about.
Also how fucking dare the fascists try and restrict kids vital access to tik tok and its bleach drinking challenge which is so hot right now

[PogiJones]

I would never claim anything is inevitable, I'm just saying what the precedent is with every lower court holding to it since. The Supreme Court can always override itself but the current makeup of the Court is more pro-rights than the one that made the decision. Scalia was the only one who dissented on the community standards matter, but Miller has been shot full of holes after the Roberts Court said crush videos weren't obscene. It'd be fairly shocking if the Court said any community in the country can control access to the Internet on the basis of legal content.

Don't think that's what they said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens

Depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment.

After this ruling, the statute was revised by the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 to have much more specific language indicating it was intended only to apply to "crush videos."

The law was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v Richards.[3]

But this is going too far down the rabbit hole for this time of night. Regardless, my doubts mostly lie in trying to apply content-based speech restriction case law to the Florida law, which I think is probably better analyzed as content-neutral.

[Eric Cartman]

Instead of meaningful legislation, regulations and rules holding social media companies accountable to address the various issues with minors using social media, right-wingers turn to the only fucking thing they know how to do when it comes to any problem: ban. They don't want to have to put any effort in and they're not capable anyway. Fucking morons.

I'm sorry I couldn't complete this post, but my browser crashed trying to resize spidersmans to the appropriate resolution

[Besticus Maximus]

You'll be fleeing here when Labour makes Joanne the new monarch!

wrong, I'll be doing research in the concentration camps on behalf of Sir Keith Stalin

[benji]

Regardless, my doubts mostly lie in trying to apply content-based speech restriction case law to the Florida law, which I think is probably better analyzed as content-neutral.

But this would actually be an even harder case to make because you'd have to argue the state has a compelling interest in controlling private property and somehow in the name of content that's legal.

I can tell you right now that one of the justices is going to ask if that means the state can tell you what you can watch on your own television or books you can read on your own Kindle.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Or what bread you can put in YOUR OWN DAMN TOASTER!

[benji]

Time to do your part "allies" 

[PogiJones]

You could be right, but I think that you're again drifting into content-based analysis. Your "what I can watch on my TV" analogy is again appealing to content, and you're also an adult. Social networks can be argued to be a forum rather than content. Maybe it's content, but I'd say that's up in the air.

Honestly, social media is such a unique beast, unlike anything the world has ever seen before--even the real-life analog it's attempting to imitate (a town square or whatever)--so it's hard to say what arguments will win out. Especially when the harm it causes to kids is so extremely well established. But then again, so is the harm of sugar. Maybe you're right that it will be treated as content-based speech, and maybe you're right that a content-neutral approach is even more difficult to win, although I don't think so.

[benji]

I think you're overlooking something too obvious to immediately come to mind though: none of this content is illegal for minors to see.

I also find the social media is "unlike anything the world has ever seen before" point to be both false and unpersuasive. And in the case of a Court ruling irrelevant as never before has such a thing provided a basis for the suspension of rights outside of when the Court accepted false testimony regarding the communications spectrum. Doubly so because they won't be able to define "social media" differently from the Internet in general.