Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>but they should be clear and consistent.

As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in Jacobellis v. Ohio [1], "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

I'm not sure how we can expect "clear and consistent" rulings from Youtube when even our law can be vague and inconsistent.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it




In my opinion that's a better argument against the usefulness of a supreme court than it is a justification for allowing leeway in censorship.

The justice is claiming that said illegal content cannot be described or identified in law, that it must be up to a judge to make that call. Such a system is insane to those being ruled by it - we can't know if we are breaking the law, but at any time a judge could decide of their own accord that we are.

We must live under a system of laws that can be comprehensible enough for a reasonable person to be able to tell when they cross the line and are likely breaking the law.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: