Just as some additional information, being prosecuted for publishing the blueprints to a very dangerous weapon is a textbook (as in, I read it in a textbook) example of where it is generally believed that your right to free speech does not provide a good defence.
Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.
Certainly not generally believed by anyone (including lawyers) I know. There's not much to interpret in "...shall make no law..."
The problem, as stated everywhere around this post, is who draws the line, considering the line is against the letter and spirit of the law. The whole reason the clause "...shall make no law..." is there is because any law is self-serving to a group of people wishing to control another group.
While you may consider weapons speech to be over a line you have arbitrarily drawn in the sand, this guy over here believes hate speech is a more dangerous type of speech and would like to draw his own line.
Pretty soon the government considers anti-government speech to be "hate speech" against the powers that be...
The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech. For example, the espionage act has been ruled constitutional. Military officers are prohibited from releasing classified information. You're in trouble if you call in a bomb threat.
You segue onto hate speech and drawing lines; this seems irrelevant here.
Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison.
Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.
If it were the case that the constitution allowed the government to (say) prohibit the exporting of certain military hardware (say, a nuclear bomb), but not prohibiting the export of an incredibly detailed document explaining every nuance, datum, etc of producing that same piece of military hardware, I'd argue that the constitution needed a brief update (perhaps as you mention to 'shall make not many laws'). To my knowledge, it does not.
Then either this case will lead to failure, or success by arguing that any export regs on ideas are unconstitutional (thus leading to the bizarre problem above) or a success by proving that the export regs do not, or should not cover what he has produced.
Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.
If Intel were to publish detailed instructions for building this computer in a book, there's no question that it would be protected by the first amendment.
The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech.
My assertion is that this is an affront to the Constitution. I thought I made that clear, but if not, SCOTUS ruling that a law abridging the freedom of speech is Constitutional is blatantly and obviously wrong, until an amendment is passed changing the 1st, which is why we have an amendment process.
To be clear, the law against "fire in a movie theater" hold criminal information that is blatantly 1) dangerous and, more importantly 2) known to be false.
Very specifically this SCOTUS opinion leaves alone speech that is 1) dangerous and 2) opinion or fact and not know to be false. So yelling "fire!" In a theater actually on fire - even though that information can be dangerous (set off a panic) is not illegal.
I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.
I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.
aptly explained, and food for thought. My appreciations.
You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means.
Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.
I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet.
Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned.
Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.
I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?
He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning.
Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.
The classic case on this topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_I.... And nobody knows what the court would have ruled because once the blueprints for the hydrogen bomb were reprinted widely, the government decided that there was no point in continuing the case.
This is being used for a standard gun. A very dangerous weapon would be something like a dirty bomb or nuke.
But even then I disagree. Censorship is despicable and will be abused. Historically it has been far more abused than any other dangerous weapon and should thus be the first eliminated.
So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?
This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder.
It raised clear issues which were never settled conclusively.
Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. The argument that is usually made is that of a slippery slope; we've been going down that slope for hundreds of years and still have no Ministry of Love or thoughtcrime.
So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?
The serial killer already has it. Allowing them to publish it is our best bet to catch them before they do anything else.
Would you suggest limiting knowledge of chemistry as a classified need-to-know secret so that serial killers won't make nerve gas?
This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder.
And I believe that such a rulling is, quite frankly, BS. Because even if it consolidates all the info, all the info on how to dispose of bodies already exists online.
Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit.
Hello. My name is Strange Person. How are you doing today?
Then your definition of free speech is different from that of most people. For example, under your definition it would be legal to falsely testify in court. It would be legal to publish child pornography.
For example, under your definition it would be legal to falsely testify in court.
The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.
It would be legal to publish child pornography.
Those who produce it would still be hunted down with extreme prejudice and any potential market would be immediately priced out by legally produced computer generated images. If anything, it would better allow us to hunt down the producers, increasing the number of children rescued. It would also stop the courts from ruining the lives of children who sext. Not perfect, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume the costs are greater than the benefits.
The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.
Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed? How about the police officer who testifies that they found the fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime? How about the totally forged chain of custody for evidence? What about the bit where the police stitched the interrogation tape together so that the accused has a recorded confession?
Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.
I don't think you can make the second claim without some kind of evidence at all.
Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed?
Heard about the FBI and their recent DNA scandal. Our current system isn't preventing the problem already. Police already are known for falsifying evidence.
As for a legal basis, you still have the ability to sign away your rights (well some of them at least), which is how an NDA would still be legal. You can choose to enter into such a contract with the government, but with the key difference being one of choice. You don't choose it, then you don't get to be a police officer, judge, etc.
Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.
It already is for the majority of the players too poor to pay to win.
So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?
Repressive governments killed more people during the 20th century than all of the serial killers in history. We have far more to fear from governments than from individual psychopaths.
This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court).
First, there was no such finding about the book. Just because the first judge to hear a motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds refuses to grant it doesn't mean that the book was found to not be protected. The case was settled by Paladin Press's insurance company.
Second, the fact that the aforementioned murderer was caught, convicted and died in prison illustrates the fallacious nature of the arguments about the books lethality. I have a copy, it's fantasy.
We're facing the threat of such a regime right now.
Cody Wilson was threatened with incarceration for sharing information that he obtained legally and belonged to him.
He's not selling trade secrets. He's not releasing classified government files. He was allowing people to download design documents that he created and for which he owned the IP. He was providing information for people to do something that was completely legal in the jurisdiction in which he was located.
It isn't a dichotomy, but it is like a person trying to support their weight on the floor. The straighter they stand, the long they can keep the position. Have them lean far enough over and it is near inevitable that they will eventually crash to the ground. If you have them plank a few inches off the ground, you could probably hold your breath longer than it takes for them to hit the ground.
(I think I need a better analogy here, but it'll take me some time to come up with one.)
Comments
Just as some additional information, being prosecuted for publishing the blueprints to a very dangerous weapon is a textbook (as in, I read it in a textbook) example of where it is generally believed that your right to free speech does not provide a good defence.
Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.
Certainly not generally believed by anyone (including lawyers) I know. There's not much to interpret in "...shall make no law..."
The problem, as stated everywhere around this post, is who draws the line, considering the line is against the letter and spirit of the law. The whole reason the clause "...shall make no law..." is there is because any law is self-serving to a group of people wishing to control another group.
While you may consider weapons speech to be over a line you have arbitrarily drawn in the sand, this guy over here believes hate speech is a more dangerous type of speech and would like to draw his own line.
Pretty soon the government considers anti-government speech to be "hate speech" against the powers that be...
"No" law. Not "not many" laws.
The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech. For example, the espionage act has been ruled constitutional. Military officers are prohibited from releasing classified information. You're in trouble if you call in a bomb threat.
You segue onto hate speech and drawing lines; this seems irrelevant here.
Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison.
Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.
If it were the case that the constitution allowed the government to (say) prohibit the exporting of certain military hardware (say, a nuclear bomb), but not prohibiting the export of an incredibly detailed document explaining every nuance, datum, etc of producing that same piece of military hardware, I'd argue that the constitution needed a brief update (perhaps as you mention to 'shall make not many laws'). To my knowledge, it does not.
Then either this case will lead to failure, or success by arguing that any export regs on ideas are unconstitutional (thus leading to the bizarre problem above) or a success by proving that the export regs do not, or should not cover what he has produced.
Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.
If Intel were to publish detailed instructions for building this computer in a book, there's no question that it would be protected by the first amendment.
what if they were to not do that, and instead just email them privately (as hypothesised)?
Not for speech. Let's say that employee worked on those documents, and was presumed to have knowledge that would enable her to recreate similar plans.
Now suppose they defect to China. They could lose their clearance and, I suppose, be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts.
But what prior restraint can legally be placed on this person?
So if Edward Snowden were to come back to the US, he'd be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts but no more? Seems suspect.
More than likely he'd be prosecuted for computer crimes, not violations of speech limitations.
He'd be prosecuted under the espionage act[0] per the charges against him. The espionage act limits speech.
[0]-http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden...
This thread is about consequences when the a priori restraint to free speech is not in existence. Please don't derail.
The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech.
My assertion is that this is an affront to the Constitution. I thought I made that clear, but if not, SCOTUS ruling that a law abridging the freedom of speech is Constitutional is blatantly and obviously wrong, until an amendment is passed changing the 1st, which is why we have an amendment process.
Do you support a citizen's right to yell "fire!" in a crowded building or theater?
Yes.
To be clear, the law against "fire in a movie theater" hold criminal information that is blatantly 1) dangerous and, more importantly 2) known to be false.
Very specifically this SCOTUS opinion leaves alone speech that is 1) dangerous and 2) opinion or fact and not know to be false. So yelling "fire!" In a theater actually on fire - even though that information can be dangerous (set off a panic) is not illegal.
I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.
aptly explained, and food for thought. My appreciations.
You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means.
Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.
I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet.
Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned.
Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.
I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?
He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning.
Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.
Generally believed by whom?
The classic case on this topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_I.... And nobody knows what the court would have ruled because once the blueprints for the hydrogen bomb were reprinted widely, the government decided that there was no point in continuing the case.
Like the weaspon of cryptography?
This is being used for a standard gun. A very dangerous weapon would be something like a dirty bomb or nuke.
But even then I disagree. Censorship is despicable and will be abused. Historically it has been far more abused than any other dangerous weapon and should thus be the first eliminated.
So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?
This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder.
It raised clear issues which were never settled conclusively.
Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. The argument that is usually made is that of a slippery slope; we've been going down that slope for hundreds of years and still have no Ministry of Love or thoughtcrime.
The serial killer already has it. Allowing them to publish it is our best bet to catch them before they do anything else.
Would you suggest limiting knowledge of chemistry as a classified need-to-know secret so that serial killers won't make nerve gas?
And I believe that such a rulling is, quite frankly, BS. Because even if it consolidates all the info, all the info on how to dispose of bodies already exists online.
Hello. My name is Strange Person. How are you doing today?
Then your definition of free speech is different from that of most people. For example, under your definition it would be legal to falsely testify in court. It would be legal to publish child pornography.
The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.
Those who produce it would still be hunted down with extreme prejudice and any potential market would be immediately priced out by legally produced computer generated images. If anything, it would better allow us to hunt down the producers, increasing the number of children rescued. It would also stop the courts from ruining the lives of children who sext. Not perfect, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume the costs are greater than the benefits.
Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed? How about the police officer who testifies that they found the fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime? How about the totally forged chain of custody for evidence? What about the bit where the police stitched the interrogation tape together so that the accused has a recorded confession?
Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.
I don't think you can make the second claim without some kind of evidence at all.
Heard about the FBI and their recent DNA scandal. Our current system isn't preventing the problem already. Police already are known for falsifying evidence.
As for a legal basis, you still have the ability to sign away your rights (well some of them at least), which is how an NDA would still be legal. You can choose to enter into such a contract with the government, but with the key difference being one of choice. You don't choose it, then you don't get to be a police officer, judge, etc.
It already is for the majority of the players too poor to pay to win.
So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?
Repressive governments killed more people during the 20th century than all of the serial killers in history. We have far more to fear from governments than from individual psychopaths.
This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court).
First, there was no such finding about the book. Just because the first judge to hear a motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds refuses to grant it doesn't mean that the book was found to not be protected. The case was settled by Paladin Press's insurance company.
Second, the fact that the aforementioned murderer was caught, convicted and died in prison illustrates the fallacious nature of the arguments about the books lethality. I have a copy, it's fantasy.
Yes, we do. That does not give us a dichotomy of unconditional free speech vs totalitarian regime.
We're facing the threat of such a regime right now.
Cody Wilson was threatened with incarceration for sharing information that he obtained legally and belonged to him.
He's not selling trade secrets. He's not releasing classified government files. He was allowing people to download design documents that he created and for which he owned the IP. He was providing information for people to do something that was completely legal in the jurisdiction in which he was located.
It isn't a dichotomy, but it is like a person trying to support their weight on the floor. The straighter they stand, the long they can keep the position. Have them lean far enough over and it is near inevitable that they will eventually crash to the ground. If you have them plank a few inches off the ground, you could probably hold your breath longer than it takes for them to hit the ground.
(I think I need a better analogy here, but it'll take me some time to come up with one.)
Did you read about prior restraint in a textbook, too?
In what country? In the United States, this is not a textbook definition.
Those would be obscenity, "fighting words", and incitement.