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
    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.)

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.