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
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.)