Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by fusnik View Post
    So legislation that allows you to opt out, almost as if it’s performative!
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
      Our society (thru voters, plaintiffs, legislators, judges and executives) comes to an agreement on what is appropriate to regulate. It's a balancing of rights. The disagreement on this issue highlights the process of working it all out. Obviously there is a finite amount of legislation that can be made with enough consensus to take effect,
      first, we're not talking about 9 year olds sewing shirts in lower manhattan sweatshops. second, consensus does not make something constitutional or a good idea.

      Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
      so not everything is going to be regulated, nor would that really be appropriate as reasonable people will agree.
      yes, that's the whole point and is the reason why this is political theater: there is a long list of things that have zero redemptive value and are far more dangerous (in terms of both real physical harm and immediacy) to kids than tik tok but on which the utah legislature has declined to act.

      Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
      I see any likely regulation as empowering parents who care . Kids with bad parents will probably easily circumvent any controls.
      no, parents who care are already preventing or regulating kids' access to social media through the million available tools, teaching responsible social media behavior, communicating regularly with their kids, and otherwise exercising their constitutional right to parent.

      also, mandating the collection and storage of minors' and parents' personal data tied to a specific account is a terrible idea for both practical and legal privacy reasons. sorry, the determination of a utah administrative body made up of non-experts of what it means to securely retain and dispose of data is not good enough. who's on the hook when there's a data breach?

      this is all not to mention that this bill will and should get strict scrutiny on first amendment grounds. social media access is a legitimate form of first amendment expression, and the right to that expression doesn't suddenly spring into existence when someone turns 18.
      Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

        And parents will have a right to opt out of this. That is part of the legislation! Parents will still be able to be as shitty as they want.
        no, it flips the presumption in a way that is both stupid and unconstitutional. defaults against freedom are bad.
        Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by falafel View Post

          Obviously we are okay with lines being drawn and letting the government legislate certain behavior that society deems dangerous enough that it is above a parent's right to be shitty. The question is whether instagram is one of them.
          ignoring the first amendment question and practical reasons why this is a dumb idea: stipulated that social media is bad for people and kids especially. but it is absolutely not the type of "danger" that has ever been or should ever be recognized as a basis for the abrogation of rights. good vibes and best intentions are not a reason to inartfully enact legislation that constitutes a serious infringement of parental rights.
          Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
            first, we're not talking about 9 year olds sewing shirts in lower manhattan sweatshops. second, consensus does not make something constitutional or a good idea.
            Agreed.

            Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
            yes, that's the whole point and is the reason why this is political theater: there is a long list of things that have zero redemptive value and are far more dangerous (in terms of both real physical harm and immediacy) to kids than tik tok but on which the utah legislature has declined to act.
            I think we simply disagree on whether something needs to be addressed here. Any other unrelated issues that need to be addressed are beside the point, but perhaps you could start a dialogue and people will start talking.

            Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
            no, parents who care are already preventing or regulating kids' access to social media through the million available tools, teaching responsible social media behavior, communicating regularly with their kids, and otherwise exercising their constitutional right to parent.
            That's a pretty harsh judgement of any parent with a child on the short end of the SM stick. I think you'll find that there are lots of good well intentioned parents who struggle to find a way to cope with today's landscape.

            Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
            also, mandating the collection and storage of minors' and parents' personal data tied to a specific account is a terrible idea for both practical and legal privacy reasons. sorry, the determination of a utah administrative body made up of non-experts of what it means to securely retain and dispose of data is not good enough. who's on the hook when there's a data breach?

            this is all not to mention that this bill will and should get strict scrutiny on first amendment grounds. social media access is a legitimate form of first amendment expression, and the right to that expression doesn't suddenly spring into existence when someone turns 18.
            This is what needs to get worked out in the process.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post

              no, it flips the presumption in a way that is both stupid and unconstitutional. defaults against freedom are bad.
              I am willing to make a bet with you on the constitutionality issue.
              "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
              "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
              "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
                I think we simply disagree on whether something needs to be addressed here. Any other unrelated issues that need to be addressed are beside the point, but perhaps you could start a dialogue and people will start talking.
                i don't think we disagree on that. we disagree on the addressing party, whether that party has constitutional authority to address the issue (and the precedent created by pretending it does because the animating rationale might be genuine), whether the constitutional rights of other parties are infringed by its action and the spillover effects of the method of address.

                Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
                That's a pretty harsh judgement of any parent with a child on the short end of the SM stick. I think you'll find that there are lots of good well intentioned parents who struggle to find a way to cope with today's landscape.
                that is true about every issue parents face. life's hard, but parents don't need a state senator from spanish fork or shapeless administrative implementing body to make their decisions for them.

                Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post
                This is what needs to get worked out in the process.
                you can't work out a violation of the first amendment in the process, but aside from that the key policy implementation considerations, enforcement mechanisms and practical consequences should have been worked out in advance of legislating a hardwired date for compliance. if you're wary of letting the smartest engineers there are protect your personal data, you should sure be worried about an unaccountable group of non-experts deciding what it means for your family's data to be "secure."
                Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post

                  ignoring the first amendment question and practical reasons why this is a dumb idea: stipulated that social media is bad for people and kids especially. but it is absolutely not the type of "danger" that has ever been or should ever be recognized as a basis for the abrogation of rights. good vibes and best intentions are not a reason to inartfully enact legislation that constitutes a serious infringement of parental rights.
                  Abrogation of rights. Oh boy. It simply give parents a more powerful set of tools that they can use to control SM access for their kids - if they choose to use it.
                  "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                  "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                  "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

                    I am willing to make a bet with you on the constitutionality issue.
                    bet. daddy scalia agrees with me:

                    “[M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.” Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 212–213 (1975) (citation omitted). No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, Ginsberg, supra, at 640–641; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 165 (1944), but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” Erznoznik, supra, at 213–214.[Footnote 3]
                    [The dissent] ignores the holding of Erznoznik, anddenies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say. This is true enough. And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admit persons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporal punishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made criminal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent. Our point is not, as Justice Thomas believes, post, at 16, n. 2, merely that such laws are “undesirable.” They are obviously an infringement upon the religious freedom of young people and those who wish to proselytize young people. Such laws do not enforce parental authority over children’s speech and religion; they impose governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto. In the absence of any precedent for state control, uninvited by the parents, over a child’s speech and religion (Justice Thomas cites none), and in the absence of any justification for such control that would satisfy strict scrutiny, those laws must be unconstitutional. This argument is not, as Justice Thomas asserts, “circular,” ibid. It is the absence of any historical warrant or compelling justification for such restrictions, not our ipse dixit, that renders them invalid.
                    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

                      Abrogation of rights. Oh boy. It simply give parents a more powerful set of tools that they can use to control SM access for their kids - if they choose to use it.
                      absolutely false. it defaults to the use of a blanket prohibition on social media access for kids unless parents choose otherwise. it's an abrogation of parents' 14th amendment due process rights and it is an abrogation of kids' first amendment rights, which are not granted on an opt-in basis.
                      Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                        Maybe. Maybe not.

                        Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 395. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U. S., at 822–823, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R. A. V., supra, at 395. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818.

                        California cannot meet that standard. At the outset, it acknowledges that it cannot show a direct causal link between violent video games and harm to minors. Rather, relying upon our decision in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622 (1994), the State claims that it need not produce such proof because the legislature can make a predictive judgment that such a link exists, based on competing psychological studies. But reliance on Turner Broadcasting is misplaced. That decision applied intermediate scrutiny to a content-neutral regulation. Id., at 661–662. California’s burden is much higher, and because it bears the risk of uncertainty, see Playboy, supra, at 816–817, ambiguous proof will not suffice.
                        Should be pretty easy to show hard data/causal link in this case.
                        "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                        "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                        "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post

                          i don't think we disagree on that. we disagree on the addressing party, whether that party has constitutional authority to address the issue (and the precedent created by pretending it does because the animating rationale might be genuine), whether the constitutional rights of other parties are infringed by its action and the spillover effects of the method of address.



                          that is true about every issue parents face. life's hard, but parents don't need a state senator from spanish fork or shapeless administrative implementing body to make their decisions for them.



                          you can't work out a violation of the first amendment in the process, but aside from that the key policy implementation considerations, enforcement mechanisms and practical consequences should have been worked out in advance of legislating a hardwired date for compliance. if you're wary of letting the smartest engineers there are protect your personal data, you should sure be worried about an unaccountable group of non-experts deciding what it means for your family's data to be "secure."
                          I don't pretend to know which issues will run into Constitutional problems. I haven't studied the legislation that closely. There are always creative ways to craft legislation to steer clear of such things. And at the end of the day, it often comes down to how the Judiciary weighs in, which I alluded to earlier. I don't even know for sure that this is not political theater. But I hope not. I hope Gov Cox is sincere and that this is the start of an honest effort to address the problem.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                            Dissenting opinion from Thomas:

                            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/786/#T3

                            The Court’s decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment. The majority strikes down, as facially unconstitutional, a state law that prohibits the direct sale or rental of certain video games to minors because the law “abridg[es] the freedom of speech.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. But I do not think the First Amendment stretches that far. The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
                            In my view, the “practices and beliefs held by the Founders” reveal another category of excluded speech: speech to minor children bypassing their parents. McIntyre, supra, at 360. The historical evidence shows that the founding generation believed parents had absolute authority over their minor children and expected parents to use that authority to direct the proper development of their children. It would be absurd to suggest that such a society understood “the freedom of speech” to include a right to speak to minors (or a corresponding right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents. Cf. Brief for Common Sense Media as Amicus Curiae 12–15. The founding generation would not have considered it an abridgment of “the freedom of speech” to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors’ parents.
                            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

                              Maybe. Maybe not.



                              Should be pretty easy to show hard data/causal link in this case.
                              no. aa or another real lawyer can wax poetic about the ins and outs of strict scrutiny in 1a cases, but the existence of some vague public interest is not even close to good enough. and it doesn't meet intermediate scrutiny either.
                              Last edited by old_gregg; 03-29-2023, 07:10 PM.
                              Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                                yes, that is a dissent.
                                Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X