alt Hacker News> 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.
Now you’re getting it. Throw them all out along with the idiots who passed the laws.
> Yes but why can't they be required?
The Court has interpreted compelled speech to be almost universally a violation of the First Amendment, outside of the courtroom. I tend to agree. “Shall make no law” is a strong statement.
> SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights
Prior courts. The present Court seems to be (rightly) rolling back both judicially-granted overexpansion of rights and exceptions to rights, although this is a slow process.
We have to stop relying on the courts to grant new rights and/or exemptions to rights. Passing unconstitutional bills and hoping for a favorable interpretation is clearly not the intended process, yet it’s become increasingly common.
We need to figure out how to pass amendments again or we are going to lose our republic. (It may already be too late due to an out of control executive and corrupt Congress, but that’s another matter.)
I don't think you're giving fair treatment to the complexity of the issue at hand. When SCOTUS came out in favor of anonymous political speech I do not understand it to have been on the basis of forced speech.
We require for example nutrition labels on food products. So clearly metadata of various sorts can be required for an interaction within the marketplace if there's a good enough reason for it. I'm not sure where that leaves personal blogs but it certainly applies to Amazon and PornHub.
The present court is rolling back some things but certainly not all. From the very beginning constitutional rights have never been absolute. One of the basic principles that comes up repeatedly and supersedes almost everything else is that the government must be able to carry out its duties. The contention is generally whether something is truly necessary for that and if so whether the law in question is overly broad.