‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Court agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN law demands a technical impossibility

802 points · 405 comments · hn_acker

  1. rhcom2 · · focus · HN ↗
    > It even went so far as to prohibit websites from offering instructions on how to use a VPN to bypass these checks

    How is that not a blatant first amendment violation?

    1. criddell · · focus · HN ↗
      It is, but the first amendment isn't absolute.
      1. CamperBob2 · · focus · HN ↗
        It is, but our judges and legislators find it expedient to pretend it's not.
        1. tzs · · focus · HN ↗
          The people who wrote it and the people who ratified didn't seem to think it was absolute. The First Amendment was not intended to create a new right of speech. It was intended to prevent the new federal government from abridging the existing right as it was under common law and state law.

          Under state and common law at the time many kinds of speech were routinely regulated or even criminalized, such as defamation and blasphemy.

          1. CamperBob2 · · focus · HN ↗
            They weren't short on ink. If they wanted to add additional conditions and tweaks, they would have. What they thought, or what they wrote down elsewhere, doesn't matter.

            Or at least it shouldn't.

            1. cogman10 · · focus · HN ↗
              The constitution did not apply nationally originally, it only applied to the federal government.

              It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the constitution started overriding state constitutions/laws.

              Idaho did in fact add additional ink to the freedom of speech [1]. In fact this is why so many states have a bill of rights similar to the federal constitution in their own constitutions.

              [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;legislature.idaho.gov&#x2F;statutesrules&#x2F;idconst&#x2F;ArtI&#x2F;Sect9&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;legislature.idaho.gov&#x2F;statutesrules&#x2F;idconst&#x2F;ArtI&#x2F;Sec...

            2. tzs · · focus · HN ↗
              Indeed they were not short of ink, so if they wanted to create some sort of free speech right that differed from what people at the time (including themselves) understood &quot;freedom of speech&quot; to mean they would have used a different term and explained the scope of the new right.
      2. rhcom2 · · focus · HN ↗
        I guess this could be speech integral to criminal conduct but seems like a stretch.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.