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.
Comments
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.