Do you think someone who published the specifics (parts list, blueprints, source code, etc) of such a device should be punished? I do, even though I think there's an obvious countermeasure. Likewise, while Wilson's 3D-printed gun is a toy, not everything publishable is so benign. Before we hop on the train of free-speech idealism, we should realize how fortunate we are that nobody has discovered a convenient world-ending weapon. Considering the amount of energy pent-up in ordinary matter, we've been incredibly lucky. SILEX[1] came close, but thankfully its specifics have been kept secret. And had physics turned out slightly differently, building a nuclear weapon could have been as easy as putting sand in a microwave.[2]
As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information. Until humanity becomes wiser, I think our only (terrible) option is to silence people who try to spread it. Again, this specific case clearly falls under free speech, but it's important to keep future discoveries in mind.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_lase...
2. This example was originally used by Nick Bostrom.
I vote no line. I grew up on a small farm. I was near large farms. There are some very dangerous chemicals that have been used in terrorist attacks that are in large supply on almost any farm. Freedom of speech and freedom of information is greater than any safety, especially since with the darknet and the ability to do basic research such safety is minimal at best.
>As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information.
Partial censorship in the government's favor has been vastly more dangerous than information in the hands of the masses. Thus I rather have the info without the censorship.
To quote someone who actually put his money where his mought was...
>The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
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?
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.
Also, I think it may be a mistake for you to think that you are the first and only person to have come up with most of your "dangerous" ideas. Open conversations about potential threat vectors is a much better proposition than trying to sweep it all under a rug, hoping some "bad actor" never arrives at that same idea.
Summary: The question isn't if the knowledge about dangerous weapons will leak, but when that leak will happen. The as technology keeps getting better and better, it is only a matter of time before those technologies are cheap/simple enough to become something that can be found in a "garage workshop".
Trying to resist the spread of knowledge merely slows the rate of diffusion at best - it can have the opposite effect - so this is not a long-term solution. I suggest that we need to start fixing the underlying problems (poverty, tribal feuding, etc.) that create the motive for using dangerous weapons, or we are going to get a nasty surprise someday.
Thank you. I have seen far, far too many people - including myself, at times - instinctively choosing to be clever in conversation rather than using appropriate discretion.
Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those would be obscenity, "fighting words", and incitement.
Really? Sounds almost exactly how in the 90s restrictions were placed on exporting cryptography, by placing strong software crypto on the US Munitions List.
> Mr. Wilson, 27, claims he spent thousands of dollars over the next two years on lawyers who helped him file paperwork in an effort to comply with the regulations, which are known as ITAR.
"International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML)."
So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings?
Having read other articles about Cody he believes that all information should be free, global, and non-censored. Similar to the cypherpunk philosophy. His decision to use potentially dangerous information as an example of this idea had the intended side-effected of drawing out ideological opponents. Such as the media and regulators.
As a result, the public is now forced to seriously question the limits of free flowing of information thanks to the internet/3d printing/decentralize file sharing/etc. As we know from media piracy, attempting to suppress information on the internet usually results in the opposite effect. Which is what happened to Cody's files, tons of people reposted it all over the internet immediately after the regulatory legal threat was issued.
Anyone could check that box saying they're American or use a VPN. Then distribute the file via torrents. Which makes the whole regulatory process seem like a public spectacle rather than an effective deterrent.
The crypto wars from the 1990s is certainly analogous.
However, as far as restricting the information itself in this case - I can readily & legally buy gunsmithing books, in a country where it's illegal to possess a firearm without a license. And there's nothing shady about it. We're not talking junk kindlespam either. Real books by real authors, by real publishers in real bookshops.
If that information is considered free in a country that has some of the toughest gun laws (UK), it seems bizarre to me that it should be more restricted / less free in the US.
This reminds me, I still have the PGP source book on my bookshelf.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/the-constitution-and-the-3d...
Wired's article on this is much better.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-...
He's been disadvantaged by being held in legal limbo for two years.
Of course, if it is a clear ITAR item, then the fight for the priority of the 1st Amendment is a noble, yet most probably destined to fail, endeavor.
