5 ms·

1 and 2 are almost always going to be impossible in the US due to the first amendment (this is a feature not a bug) 3 doesn't seem crazy, but it would practic

by seany 5y ago

1 and 2 are almost always going to be impossible in the US due to the first amendment (this is a feature not a bug) 3 doesn't seem crazy, but it would practically end up with caps, which might not be what you're looking for 4 This both: seems possible, and will basically never happen due to cost in every little jurisdiction

eximius 5y ago
Defacing property is not free speech...?
- seany 5y ago
  Just stand in view holding the image on a poster board.
hacoo 5y ago
I doubt 1 would be protected by the first amendment. It’s arguably equivalent to spraying graffiti on a stop sign so it’s unrecognizable. It would be an extremely difficult to enforce though.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Graffiti would just cause people to drive unsafely, in that hypothetical the sticker directly causes crashes. It'd be something like attempted murder.
mgraczyk 5y ago
#1 is certainly not a first amendment violation. In fact, the supreme court still holds that certain restrictions on billboards are allowed even for the purpose of preserving beauty. Safety is a much more compelling interest than beauty, so I don't expect states and cities will lose their ability to regulate road signage. See Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego for example. #2 is expensive and difficult, but that's what we do for explosives, poisons, drugs, etc.
- seany 5y ago
  Someone could stand holding it in protest of self driving cars.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Explosives, poisons, drugs aren’t speech. Printing the chemistry for then is protected speech. If I wanted to print an image and put it on a t-shirt that would trick a computer driven car into doing something if its cameras saw my shirt, that’s not my problem. The barrier to entry is much lower too so I think it’s up to the engineers to solve it instead of trying to dump the hard problems on society.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    This is like saying "if I set up a movement based explosive in a public place, and you just happened to walk by it, that's not my problem." Yes it is, you took actions that you knew could severely harm people.
    - KingMachiavelli 5y ago
      No those are completely different. The physical act of owning an explosive can be made illegal and is. In the US the act of owning and expressing an element of speech is protected under US law. You are getting close to something with you second statement. There are laws that criminalize actions like yelling 'Fire' inside a movie theater or provoking a fight (fighting words). Essentially these laws isolate the protected 'speech' from a non-speech and therefore non-protected 'action'. However, it would be an extreme stretch to apply or expand these to apply to simply wearing a t-shirt. There is already plenty of case law that says wearing/displaying symbols or profanity is not enough to be considered fighting words/act. Heck, in most cases just using a racial epithet is not enough to be considered fighting words and/or hate speech. [1] At most you will ever be able to convict is if someone is installing these adversarial images on public property (e.g street signs). In that case you might be able to use the harmful nature/intent of the images to elevate what would otherwise be a vandalism charge to assault. Essentially there needs to be a distinct and meaningful 'action' beyond just wearing/expressing speech. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-saying-the-n-word-to-two-black-people-does-not-qualify-as-fighting-words/ar-BB1gCKdu https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-saying-the-n...

by seany 5y ago

eximius 5y ago

Defacing property is not free speech...?

seany 5y ago
Just stand in view holding the image on a poster board.

hacoo 5y ago

I doubt 1 would be protected by the first amendment. It’s arguably equivalent to spraying graffiti on a stop sign so it’s unrecognizable. It would be an extremely difficult to enforce though.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Graffiti would just cause people to drive unsafely, in that hypothetical the sticker directly causes crashes. It'd be something like attempted murder.

mgraczyk 5y ago

#1 is certainly not a first amendment violation. In fact, the supreme court still holds that certain restrictions on billboards are allowed even for the purpose of preserving beauty. Safety is a much more compelling interest than beauty, so I don't expect states and cities will lose their ability to regulate road signage. See Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego for example. #2 is expensive and difficult, but that's what we do for explosives, poisons, drugs, etc.

seany 5y ago
Someone could stand holding it in protest of self driving cars.
nemo44x 5y ago
Explosives, poisons, drugs aren’t speech. Printing the chemistry for then is protected speech. If I wanted to print an image and put it on a t-shirt that would trick a computer driven car into doing something if its cameras saw my shirt, that’s not my problem. The barrier to entry is much lower too so I think it’s up to the engineers to solve it instead of trying to dump the hard problems on society.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  This is like saying "if I set up a movement based explosive in a public place, and you just happened to walk by it, that's not my problem." Yes it is, you took actions that you knew could severely harm people.
  - KingMachiavelli 5y ago
    No those are completely different. The physical act of owning an explosive can be made illegal and is. In the US the act of owning and expressing an element of speech is protected under US law. You are getting close to something with you second statement. There are laws that criminalize actions like yelling 'Fire' inside a movie theater or provoking a fight (fighting words). Essentially these laws isolate the protected 'speech' from a non-speech and therefore non-protected 'action'. However, it would be an extreme stretch to apply or expand these to apply to simply wearing a t-shirt. There is already plenty of case law that says wearing/displaying symbols or profanity is not enough to be considered fighting words/act. Heck, in most cases just using a racial epithet is not enough to be considered fighting words and/or hate speech. [1] At most you will ever be able to convict is if someone is installing these adversarial images on public property (e.g street signs). In that case you might be able to use the harmful nature/intent of the images to elevate what would otherwise be a vandalism charge to assault. Essentially there needs to be a distinct and meaningful 'action' beyond just wearing/expressing speech. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-saying-the-n-word-to-two-black-people-does-not-qualify-as-fighting-words/ar-BB1gCKdu https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-saying-the-n...