As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information
I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up on the hierarchy ladder.
And then there the issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to publish information anonymously?
The first line would be the government. This is what is expected in this sort of case. The defendant could then appeal, and eventually it would reach the Supreme Court, who would then decide.
This is the general process for appealing all laws thought to be unconstitutional in the US, for better or worse. Challenging it is unlikely to curry favour from any party.
When you're threatened with jail time and million dollar fines, your first thought isn't "yeah, screw it, I'll appeal". Most rational people will just play it safe and comply.
Knowing that, authorities can use it to suppress anything inconvenient that comes close to some broad definition of "dangerous" information.
I'm quite certain I'm well into the 1%, and I've looked at taking people to court several times when they've screwed me over in some way. Not once have I ever looked at the process and thought, "I can afford this!", so I choose to pay to deal with their actions myself and move on with my life. The legal system is broken.
Yet putting a missile into their vehicle, even when there is a chance their children are with them, isn't (and even if it is on paper, a law that isn't enforced might as well not exist).
Comments
I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up on the hierarchy ladder. And then there the issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to publish information anonymously?
The first line would be the government. This is what is expected in this sort of case. The defendant could then appeal, and eventually it would reach the Supreme Court, who would then decide.
This is the general process for appealing all laws thought to be unconstitutional in the US, for better or worse. Challenging it is unlikely to curry favour from any party.
When you're threatened with jail time and million dollar fines, your first thought isn't "yeah, screw it, I'll appeal". Most rational people will just play it safe and comply. Knowing that, authorities can use it to suppress anything inconvenient that comes close to some broad definition of "dangerous" information.
I'm quite certain I'm well into the 1%, and I've looked at taking people to court several times when they've screwed me over in some way. Not once have I ever looked at the process and thought, "I can afford this!", so I choose to pay to deal with their actions myself and move on with my life. The legal system is broken.
Well Blinding weapons are banned by the Geneva convention use would be considered a war crime.
That's actually true (I wasn't aware of it), turns out there's even a wikipedia article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weap...
While true, how would that begin to cover domestic use outside of warfare? I didn't even think the current discussion was even covering warfare.
Causing injury to another person is generally already illegal.
The question isn't about causing injury. It is about possessing a device (or even knowledge) capable of harming someone.
Because there are non criminal ways to go about killing people in war.. think about that a bit.
Yet putting a missile into their vehicle, even when there is a chance their children are with them, isn't (and even if it is on paper, a law that isn't enforced might as well not exist).
No suffering involved... Because killing is okay as long as you don't make your victim suffer.
I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic because there are enough people who hold a similar view to this, at least in certain cases.
I said it tongue in cheek because I don't believe any form of killing is okay, except maybe as punishment for murder.
The logic used to prohibit things like chemical warfare during war is just that: to limit suffering.