I guess it's for the best to keep it simple, but I kinda hate how to get anything done, we have to label it free speech. It's like we can't manage to make laws to reasonably keep people from imposing religious restrictions on the population so we have to classify everything as speech.
I'd rather we use the ninth amendment more often:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This should be sufficient to defend a right to privacy, which online ID/age verification laws necessarily violate.
The current SC bench pretends that amendment doesn't exist. The only amendments they care about are the 2nd amendment and the 1st, when it suits them.
I genuinely don't see where you're coming from with that
The ninth amendment basically means that rights don't need to be mentioned in the Constitution to exist, and that has basis in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Part of a right to liberty is a right to privacy, and neither are expressly mentioned in the Constitution yet are assumed to exist by the founders. There was even a fight in the early days of the US about whether we needed a Bill of Rights because rights are inherent and don't need to be enumerated.
That brings us to ID laws. If I'm forced to ID myself at every turn, am I truly free? In many states (including my own), I am not required to ID myself to the police unless I'm suspected of commiting a crime (and there's a legal standard there), and even then, I only need to provide my name and address (though the officer made demand my age and explanation of my actions as well). I don't need to provide my ID or any proof.
The only time I need to provide proof of ID (or proof of age) is when:
buying alcohol, cigarettes, or other age-restricted substances
I am pulled over for a driving-related infraction (cycling counts), in which case I need to prove I can drive
I am not required to present ID to buy age-restricted content online (e.g. video games). I am not required to present ID to buy things that are legal in another country but not my own (e.g. alcohol is legal in Germany at 16). I am not required to present ID to consume age-restricted substances in my own home, and I am allowed to provide certain age-restricted substances to my children for certain purposes, including religious observance or medical use (up to my discretion, no need to prove anything). I am not aware of any laws restricting that content I can show my children in my own home.
So in general, I do not have to present ID or ask permission for anything I do in my own home. So requiring ID to view a website is an absolute invasion of that privacy that I reasonably expect in my own home. Websites can absolutely choose to verify ID if they want, I just refuse to allow the government to require that. There is all kinds of case law protecting people when they are inside their own home, such as the Castle Doctrine (I can use force to defend my home), the requirement for warrants by police to enter a home (even if a suspect in pursuit enters their own home), and so on.
So no, I reject this type of law under my assumed right to privacy and liberty. I refused to be tracked for doing things that the government doesn't like within my own home.
That's because free speech, by design, is one of the more important defenses against government overreach.
Part of the first amendment that's often overlooked/not talked about is freedom of religion, and separation of church in state. The first line is separation of church and state.
Yeah I agree, it's tricky though right? There's a defined difference between religion and religious agenda. I can't force someone to take a blood transfusion, unconstitutional, that's fine. But when politicians use religious agenda as a campaign promise, no one can be allowed a blood transfusion. Now it's no longer religion or separation. They're just pandering to the wants of the religious base. Supreme Court waking up one day and going You know what screw precedent, that should have got them out right away. But our government is not designed to be protected from that kind of thing.
I suppose the way to look at it is, everyone's allowed whatever religion they want, as long as they don't expect everyone else to agree with it or conform to their worldview. Their right to believe, and you're right not to believe, are equal, and you're right not to be converted and they're right not to be challenged are also equal.
Basically everyone should just leave each other alone.
If they are making laws due to a religious agenda, I would argue that goes against the first amendment.
It's an appropriate designation in this case, and an appropriate rebuke to the law.
I guess it's for the best to keep it simple, but I kinda hate how to get anything done, we have to label it free speech. It's like we can't manage to make laws to reasonably keep people from imposing religious restrictions on the population so we have to classify everything as speech.
I'd rather we use the ninth amendment more often:
This should be sufficient to defend a right to privacy, which online ID/age verification laws necessarily violate.
The current SC bench pretends that amendment doesn't exist. The only amendments they care about are the 2nd amendment and the 1st, when it suits them.
I genuinely don't see where you're coming from with that
The ninth amendment basically means that rights don't need to be mentioned in the Constitution to exist, and that has basis in the Declaration of Independence:
Part of a right to liberty is a right to privacy, and neither are expressly mentioned in the Constitution yet are assumed to exist by the founders. There was even a fight in the early days of the US about whether we needed a Bill of Rights because rights are inherent and don't need to be enumerated.
That brings us to ID laws. If I'm forced to ID myself at every turn, am I truly free? In many states (including my own), I am not required to ID myself to the police unless I'm suspected of commiting a crime (and there's a legal standard there), and even then, I only need to provide my name and address (though the officer made demand my age and explanation of my actions as well). I don't need to provide my ID or any proof.
The only time I need to provide proof of ID (or proof of age) is when:
I am not required to present ID to buy age-restricted content online (e.g. video games). I am not required to present ID to buy things that are legal in another country but not my own (e.g. alcohol is legal in Germany at 16). I am not required to present ID to consume age-restricted substances in my own home, and I am allowed to provide certain age-restricted substances to my children for certain purposes, including religious observance or medical use (up to my discretion, no need to prove anything). I am not aware of any laws restricting that content I can show my children in my own home.
So in general, I do not have to present ID or ask permission for anything I do in my own home. So requiring ID to view a website is an absolute invasion of that privacy that I reasonably expect in my own home. Websites can absolutely choose to verify ID if they want, I just refuse to allow the government to require that. There is all kinds of case law protecting people when they are inside their own home, such as the Castle Doctrine (I can use force to defend my home), the requirement for warrants by police to enter a home (even if a suspect in pursuit enters their own home), and so on.
So no, I reject this type of law under my assumed right to privacy and liberty. I refused to be tracked for doing things that the government doesn't like within my own home.
That's because free speech, by design, is one of the more important defenses against government overreach.
Part of the first amendment that's often overlooked/not talked about is freedom of religion, and separation of church in state. The first line is separation of church and state.
Yeah I agree, it's tricky though right? There's a defined difference between religion and religious agenda. I can't force someone to take a blood transfusion, unconstitutional, that's fine. But when politicians use religious agenda as a campaign promise, no one can be allowed a blood transfusion. Now it's no longer religion or separation. They're just pandering to the wants of the religious base. Supreme Court waking up one day and going You know what screw precedent, that should have got them out right away. But our government is not designed to be protected from that kind of thing.
I suppose the way to look at it is, everyone's allowed whatever religion they want, as long as they don't expect everyone else to agree with it or conform to their worldview. Their right to believe, and you're right not to believe, are equal, and you're right not to be converted and they're right not to be challenged are also equal.
Basically everyone should just leave each other alone.
If they are making laws due to a religious agenda, I would argue that goes against the first amendment.
It's an appropriate designation in this case, and an appropriate rebuke to the law.