alt Hacker NewsImpressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany.
Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking.
“Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amendment, assuming you can get enough people to agree with your assessment.
Replies
You're just vaguely waving towards the first amendment. That's not a cohesive argument in and of itself.
By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. After all, they both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech).
> Impressums cannot be required in the US
Yes but why can't they be required? My (quite possibly flawed) understanding was that SCOTUS previously established that publishing without attribution could not directly be outlawed, recognizing the ability to speak anonymously as an important aspect of political speech. What I have described does not run afoul of that. It neither restricts one's ability to speak nor provides for any form of attribution.
> “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights
Regardless of either your or my personal opinion SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights when a compelling need is presented and the remedy is sufficiently targeted. That said, I don't believe that what I described infringes on the first amendment to begin with so your point is doubly moot.
Regulations on speaking to children have ample precident. We rate movies and age-gate admittance, we don't allow children into liquor stores, strip clubs, or adult bookstores. None of those things violate the First Amendment.