[hn_acker]

> then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does.

Porn sites generally age restrict their content voluntarily in the United States. There are constitutional ways to enforce age restrictions on websites by law (such as requiring an RTA label as mentioned by Bender [1][2], with a private right of action in only limited cases), while age verification likely is unconstitutional [3]. Anyway, we're talking about bookstores that don't chiefly cater adult-only books.

> then simply age-restrict the content? like any porn site does. this is a nothingburger.

It's not a nothingburger if any parent claiming harm can sue and if people can turn questionable book bans on school libraries into book sale lawsuits on bookstores. So what is a concrete way for a bookstore to "simply age-restrict the content" in a way that will prevent lawsuits and allow the law to pass strict scrutiny (which has a "least restrictive means" prong [4])? When I said that a criminal law has "significantly less DDOSing potential", I meant that (even lone) frivolous lawsuits can impose a massive burden on legal speech, like in the case of SLAPP suits [5].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43784936

[2] https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single

[3] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/why-i-emphatic...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

[gosub100]

I think your viewpoint lacks awareness of diverse groups that may be sensitive to certain types of content. If you distribute works that disrupt the mind of a child, this bill allows parents to seek relief. I think that's a good thing. You can still peddle the offensive material but require ID to view it.

[hn_acker]

> I think your viewpoint lacks awareness of diverse groups that may be sensitive to certain types of content.

We might be in partial agreement on this point. Consider the parents in Iowa who think that books with LGBTQ+ themes fit a law about `sex acts` [1]. (The problem was twofold: the Iowa law was so broadly written as to include nonsexual aspects of heteronormative and LGBTQ+ themes, and parents tended to target only the books about LGBTQ+ themes.)

> If you distribute works that disrupt the mind of a child, this bill allows parents to seek relief. I think that's a good thing.

I was arguing that this bill, which both is broadly written and allows a private right of action, is a bad thing because it will encourage frivolous lawsuits over books that minors should be able to access. In some cases, kids will want to read such books against the wishes of their parents (though a parent would be able to prevent their children from reading forbidden in the bookstore by being present). Anyone writing a law around the concept of books that "disrupt the mind of a child" will have a difficult time satisfying strict scrutiny.

> You can still peddle the offensive material but require ID to view it.

Thanks. This solution could be constitutional with a more narrowly written bill and a restricted private right of action. By restricted, I mean that the mere act of selling a harmful book should not be sufficient to establish harm in most cases; unless the book contains something comparable to porn, the plaintiff's initial filings should include evidence that their child exhibited abnormal behavior or noticeable suffering after reading part of the book.

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/04/iowas-new-book-ban-anti-...