7 ms·

I can already hear the cries of censorship. "What do you mean crimes aren't protected speech?"

avmich 6y ago
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
- WJW 6y ago
  Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Do you have any idea how many laws there are? In addition to that, regulations aren’t neat and tidy or organized, yet they carry the force of law.
  - dschuler 6y ago
    I think avmich is getting at the idea that some actions may or may not be legal until determined to be a crime, at which point there would be two: the original crime, and using radio to facilitate it. This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge. I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.
    - fredophile 6y ago
      My understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.
      - avmich 6y ago
        And some immigration lawyers can perhaps successfully argue that it was due to sincere change of heart - no intent at the time of answering the question. /s
        fredophile 6y ago
        I've been through the immigration process to get a green card. The questions I remember answering are all about your past and not so much about what you intend to do in the future.
    - vaduz 6y ago
      The goal of similar questions (also, my favourites: have you ever been training child soldiers, or have you been involved in a violent overthrow of a legal government) is to make any discrepancy a separate immigration offense - making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end.
      - dschuler 6y ago
        > making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end Aah got it, that makes sense now. So it's not just political posturing for the extra-tough- on crime stuff.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime. Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong. There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    That is very definitely not how common law systems work. Common law systems rely very heavily on past precedent and case law, not merely the words in a statute. Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chaorace 6y ago
  I think it's a bit like felony murder. Nobody wants you committing felonies, but, if you do commit a felony, you're incentivized to avoid causing potentially deadly situations. (setting aside the actual efficacy of such incentives, that's just how the law currently is) To put it another way, you probably won't be charged just for selling drugs over a radio frequency. You'll be charged for the regular crime of selling drugs and an additional charge of using radio to commit that crime.
chmod600 6y ago
There is reason to worry when the tools of defiance or rebellion are taken away. Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good. This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government. There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very minor offense or protected speech.
- generalizations 6y ago
  > Rebellion is bad Not always. Not saying it is here, but I think it depends on the context. Arab Spring, for instance.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    The Arab Spring had mixed results, at best.
    - generalizations 6y ago
      Just means it partly succeeded, not that the rebellion was a moral failure.
  - hnuser847 6y ago
    What's interesting to note is that the Arab Spring was largely organized on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. US media outlets were thrilled about this, and wrote article after article talking about how these platforms gave the common man the opportunity to vent about police brutality, corruption, election fraud, and unemployment in a way that simply wasn't possible previously. The general attitude at the time was that social media platforms, and the free speech they enabled, would be a force for good in the world, despite the Arab Spring involving a fair amount of violence and ultimately leading the upheaval of several countries. Fast forward a decade later, and now the attitude is the complete opposite.
    - 6y ago
generalizations 6y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected speech" makes it sound like the only speech we're allowed is what is specifically allocated to us.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Which is the reality. “Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it. One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    > no man wants...many do feel Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold. If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree"). If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information? If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
damnyou 6y ago
There were times when being in an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was a crime, and a lot of sex work is still criminalized, so I'm actually quite bothered by (particularly) the prohibition against using encryption. Obviously I have no sympathy for white nationalists, but "crimes" in general tends to cover both things that are bad and things that aren't.
- chociej 6y ago
  Concealing the meaning of transmissions is contrary to the purposes of the amateur radio service. There are perfectly serviceable radio bands, modes, and services for those wanting to transmit encoded messages, just like there are for those wanting to broadcast, transmit music, engage in commerce, etc.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Personally I think private individuals should have a fundamental right to encryption regardless of the medium.
    - remexre 6y ago
      I think the goal is mainly to avoid people doing things that aren't useful to the amateur radio community on the fixed amount of spectrum made available by physics. (Well, and some Cold-War-era paranoia about foreign spies, but...)
    - irscott 6y ago
      The idea is that the amateur bands are a commons of sorts for everyone to use and enjoy. As somebody else said you're perfectly welcome to transmit encoded messages on nets designed for that.

I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.

WJW 6y ago
Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
- nickff 6y ago
  Do you have any idea how many laws there are? In addition to that, regulations aren’t neat and tidy or organized, yet they carry the force of law.
- dschuler 6y ago
  I think avmich is getting at the idea that some actions may or may not be legal until determined to be a crime, at which point there would be two: the original crime, and using radio to facilitate it. This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge. I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.
  - fredophile 6y ago
    My understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.
    - avmich 6y ago
      And some immigration lawyers can perhaps successfully argue that it was due to sincere change of heart - no intent at the time of answering the question. /s
      - fredophile 6y ago
        I've been through the immigration process to get a green card. The questions I remember answering are all about your past and not so much about what you intend to do in the future.
  - vaduz 6y ago
    The goal of similar questions (also, my favourites: have you ever been training child soldiers, or have you been involved in a violent overthrow of a legal government) is to make any discrepancy a separate immigration offense - making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end.
    - dschuler 6y ago
      > making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end Aah got it, that makes sense now. So it's not just political posturing for the extra-tough- on crime stuff.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime. Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong. There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.
- damnyou 6y ago
  That is very definitely not how common law systems work. Common law systems rely very heavily on past precedent and case law, not merely the words in a statute. Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chaorace 6y ago
I think it's a bit like felony murder. Nobody wants you committing felonies, but, if you do commit a felony, you're incentivized to avoid causing potentially deadly situations. (setting aside the actual efficacy of such incentives, that's just how the law currently is) To put it another way, you probably won't be charged just for selling drugs over a radio frequency. You'll be charged for the regular crime of selling drugs and an additional charge of using radio to commit that crime.

chmod600 6y ago

There is reason to worry when the tools of defiance or rebellion are taken away. Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good. This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government. There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very minor offense or protected speech.

generalizations 6y ago
> Rebellion is bad Not always. Not saying it is here, but I think it depends on the context. Arab Spring, for instance.
- chmod600 6y ago
  The Arab Spring had mixed results, at best.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    Just means it partly succeeded, not that the rebellion was a moral failure.
- hnuser847 6y ago
  What's interesting to note is that the Arab Spring was largely organized on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. US media outlets were thrilled about this, and wrote article after article talking about how these platforms gave the common man the opportunity to vent about police brutality, corruption, election fraud, and unemployment in a way that simply wasn't possible previously. The general attitude at the time was that social media platforms, and the free speech they enabled, would be a force for good in the world, despite the Arab Spring involving a fair amount of violence and ultimately leading the upheaval of several countries. Fast forward a decade later, and now the attitude is the complete opposite.
  - 6y ago

generalizations 6y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected speech" makes it sound like the only speech we're allowed is what is specifically allocated to us.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Which is the reality. “Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”. It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it. One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
- generalizations 6y ago
  > no man wants...many do feel Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold. If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree"). If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information? If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.

damnyou 6y ago

There were times when being in an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was a crime, and a lot of sex work is still criminalized, so I'm actually quite bothered by (particularly) the prohibition against using encryption. Obviously I have no sympathy for white nationalists, but "crimes" in general tends to cover both things that are bad and things that aren't.

chociej 6y ago
Concealing the meaning of transmissions is contrary to the purposes of the amateur radio service. There are perfectly serviceable radio bands, modes, and services for those wanting to transmit encoded messages, just like there are for those wanting to broadcast, transmit music, engage in commerce, etc.
- damnyou 6y ago
  Personally I think private individuals should have a fundamental right to encryption regardless of the medium.
  - remexre 6y ago
    I think the goal is mainly to avoid people doing things that aren't useful to the amateur radio community on the fixed amount of spectrum made available by physics. (Well, and some Cold-War-era paranoia about foreign spies, but...)
  - irscott 6y ago
    The idea is that the amateur bands are a commons of sorts for everyone to use and enjoy. As somebody else said you're perfectly welcome to transmit encoded messages on nets designed for that.