Thread

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

802 points · 405 comments · hn_acker

SoftTalker · 1790960547 · focus · HN ↗
> platforms are left with an impossible choice: completely block all VPN traffic nationwide or withdraw access from Utah entirely
Is it even possible to reliably know that a connection is from a VPN? Anyone can proxy through a random hosting provider.
1. happyPersonR · 1790967013 · focus · HN ↗
  Requires the vpn provider to snitch and possible tag the ip frames or http frames lol
  Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless ….
  1. unglaublich · 1790967265 · focus · HN ↗
    It's all just an effort to control the 90%.
    pkilgore · 1790968322 · focus · HN ↗
    It lawfare against porn. They don't want these companies to exist. They want it to be impossible to comply with the law to shut them down.
    bigbuppo · 1790969137 · focus · HN ↗
    It's lawfare against Constitutionally-protected speech. The "for the children" bit is just an appeal to emotion.
    /Same as it ever was
    bozhark · 1790987995 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s to control their Women
    Kids are the misdirection
    p-e-w · 1790988529 · focus · HN ↗
    Please elaborate on how a law that targets websites that overwhelmingly skew towards a male audience is designed to “control their women”.
    autoexec · 1790989764 · focus · HN ↗
    Charitably, outlawing porn would put a lot of women out of work, and place a new limitation on what types of work they can get, and in the process limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money). It'd do the same for men too, but as you said the audience is primarily men and the content they're looking for is primarily women. The truth is it would suck for pretty much everybody.
    Chris2048 · 1791044619 · focus · HN ↗
    > limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money)
    like how murder laws limit what women did with their bodies (strangling people to death, with their hands)
    hellojesus · 1791046391 · focus · HN ↗
    Murder isn't a voluntary trade.
    Chris2048 · 1791136001 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;
    Anything that is illegal and requires use of your body is a restriction in the use of your body.
    Purchasing, selling and muling drugs is a voluntary trade, and also illegal.
    autoexec · 1791146957 · focus · HN ↗
    > Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;
    Not in the context of a long and extensive history of efforts to place limitations (often through the use of laws) on what women can do with their own bodies, especially as it pertains to sex. The existence of entirely unrelated acts that have also been outlawed doesn't show that laws prohibiting pornography can't be a continuation of that same tradition of repression and control or that it wouldn't produce the same effect.
    0xR1CK · 1791000427 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. If they cared about the children, they'd be going after the Ep.-Class (no arrests yet), or a good 2/3rds regime in play right now.
    ekianjo · 1791019282 · focus · HN ↗
    EP class are the lawmakers so good luck with that...
    sgc · 1791045334 · focus · HN ↗
    Your comment is a bit inaccurate.
    1. There are laws already. It is an enforcement problem.
    2. The Epstein-type crimes appear to be more prevalent in other branches of government and other parts of society than specifically in the legislative.
    3. Enforcement problem is specifically in the executive, of which enforcement is a part.
    Braxton1980 · 1791057705 · focus · HN ↗
    >The Epstein-type crimes appear to be more prevalent in other branches of government and other parts of society than specifically in the legislative.
    Based on what?
    Alive-in-2025 · 1791184259 · focus · HN ↗
    Saying its an enforcement problem is itself inadequate, because there seem to be nothing really happening and there are endless numbers of powerful and wealthy people who are "in the Epstein files" that gets out in the media, yet somehow none or almost none of them are being prosecuted now or in the past. Some of the now adult victims have made public acknowledgement, congress passed a law saying the details must be disclosed, and the trump admin refuses to do that. Congress is captured by republicans and repubs in congress are captured by trump. So nothing happens.
    At the highest level the release of the files is blocked (i.e. congress and the president are the highest level).
    HiPhish · 1791021513 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's lawfare against Constitutionally-protected speech.
    Obscenity is not protected as Free Speech.
    <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/" rel="nofollow">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/
    timr · 1791022787 · focus · HN ↗
    ...and porn isn't automatically obscenity. In fact, it rarely is. C'mon, this is the fundamental outcome of the case you're citing.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
    We learn about this in high school.
    SoftTalker · 1791047840 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm actually surprised that's the case. I'm not opposed to a willing adult making or consuming pornography, but honestly I don't see how most of it does not "appeal to the prurient interest" and "lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
    That only leaves whether the material is "patently offensive" which is probably what is most open to interpretation.
    timr · 1791050460 · focus · HN ↗
    This case is not the end of the saga -- it just defined the "Miller test" which established a three-pronged definition of obscenity. This test itself reads like an anachronism to any modern viewer. Subsequent cases further narrowed the definition of speech that can be restricted.
    Ultimately, this is purely about the first amendment (which is why we learn it in high school). The fundamental principle is that the definition of "community standards" matters a great deal, and if you define obscenity too broadly, it becomes a loophole for censorship of all kinds.
    Said differently, the fact that you don't see redeeming value to some form of speech is kind of the point. There are three hundred million other people with opinions in the USA, and if we let all of them have a say in what speech gets labeled offensive, then freedom of speech and expression is a farce. Only when you set extremely stringent standards for limitations on free expression - even when it is offensive to you - can you have a society where free expression is a right.
    (For what it's worth, most cases about porn and the first amendment make very convincing counterarguments on the points you take for granted, as you might expect for arguments at the Supreme Court.)
    Braxton1980 · 1791057864 · focus · HN ↗
    I would claim that the vast majority of people in private don't believe the majority of porn is offensive
    [deleted] · 1791068397 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    someonebaggy · 1791026362 · focus · HN ↗
    Other lawfare has already stripped constitutional protection from this particular speech - judges unanimously agree the first amendment doesn't protect "obscenity" even though it clearly does by its wording.
    [deleted] · 1791039731 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    wwweston · 1791044817 · focus · HN ↗
    As a lifelong student of religious cultures like Utah's (and often in particular Utah's), this isn't bad at a first approximation but could be elaborated better.
    There is absolutely a class of Utah politicians that has little sincere personal investment in purity culture and associated culture war issues, but knows that they can be used for ingroup/virtue signaling. They also know that the dominant religious culture in Utah prepares the most significant statewide voting block to respond to such culture issues far more powerfully than any kind of attempt to engage on policy or detailed dialogue. This isn't that different from a common general strategy of running on symbolic issues and then devoting your time in office to favor trading/personal gain plus occasional personal pet policy issues, but the particular flavor is regional with a strong religious emphasis.
    But there's also significant portion of regional religious leadership and membership with sincerely held purity culture beliefs. Some of this is rooted in psychological traits amplified via theology where adherents achieve a perceived state of purity/redemption by cleansing rituals and avoiding contaminants. Some of this is rooted in credences: the tradition makes moral claims about sexual contaminants and you have to sign on to be part of the ingroup (and also the tradition's leaders speak for God and are therefore wrong and if you challenge them you're not just outgroup, you're actually challenging the authority of the tradition which makes you opposed to God himself, so from this perspective there's little legitimate discourse about sexuality topics leaders have spoken about, there's mostly authority of religious leaders and individuals declaring of which side of the spiritual war they're on).
    So, some people shaped under this culture over time do believe they are fighting crucial battles for the children, to the point where they have no problem with the erosion or even destruction of any secular treaties like those the 1st amendment supports (the fact that Latter-day Saints are quite vulnerable should secular treaties fall in a nation of much larger religious organizations that see LDS as blasphemous heretics is largely lost on most of the porn crusaders, there are some peculiar delusions that come with being a local majority with some national clout yet a national minority nonetheless).
    And others know this sincere belief is a convenient lever for other power plays, and all you have to do is flatter the prejudices and signals of the ingroup in order to get broad permission for corruption and other antisocial advances.
    [deleted] · 1791050095 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    freeopinion · 1791122836 · focus · HN ↗
    It's an interesting aspect of human nature to maintain contradictions in the same brain. Latter-day Saints are taught to value moral agency very highly. But humans in general tend to try to enforce their own practices on others (see Daniel and the Lions Den, also Prohibition).
    There will always be those who try to leverage people's human frailties into political advantage. Sometimes it's a real challenge to live a principled life. Indeed, it seems rare to meet people who hold to principles even when the principle appears to work against their own self interest in the moment.
    Obviously, moral agency in the extreme can lead to anarchy. Libertarians must always thread the line of figuring out the minimum amount of regulation that protects society just enough without infringing on the individual too much. If you want a libertarian to vote for your law, you have to convince them that it prevents a serious threat to enough important individuals to matter. You have to tip the scale on the contradiction in their brain.
    trinsic2 · 1791169327 · focus · HN ↗
    which anarchy are you talking about, the chaos one where everybody out for themselves, or the one with out rulers where there are leaders and people work together out of there own sense of authority?
    Real anarchy isnt about getting rid of laws, its about getting rid of people that use laws to rule over everyone else.
    ButlerianJihad · 1791170153 · focus · HN ↗
    Follow the money. The real “speech” is the revenue, and the spend from the patrons of porn.
    Sure, hungry working girl needs your $5 tip. Now she can have a Famous Star with fries. Story over. No, wait.
    Porn money rapidly becomes dark money. Who takes cuts? It goes offshore. It goes to pimps, gangsters, gun runners? Who knows? You don’t care!
    Are you opposed to human trafficking and slavery? No you’re not! That spicy OF that you like is part of your problem!
    Perhaps Utah and other people with morals are worried about the compromise of their men and the patrons of porn. You can drain a lot of information, and money, and desperate action, from porn addicts. So if there is a statewide financial drain, a trade deficit, if you will, perhaps it is in Utah’s best interest to keep dirty money where they can see it, and prevent their men from falling victim to the whore who sits upon many waters.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.