• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t see how it doesn’t violate free speech. Imagine needing the government’s permission to talk to someone?

    Edit: forgot a word

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are already age limitations that are constitutional. You can’t run for office, buy alcohol, drive a car etc.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it’s in the publics best interest and doesn’t put too much burden on the public.

    • Sylver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. Even internet security protocols are at risk, and the dinosaurs responsible for writing laws don’t understand basic encryption let alone the idea that it is 100% a needed concept in a free, fair, and just society.