5 ms·

#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

#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...
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      > The physical act of owning an explosive can be made illegal and is. Then let me change my example to show legal items being used with the intent to cause harm is still illegal. I'm free to put razors into candy, but if I hand it out on Halloween it'd be illegal. >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. This hypothetical T-shirt isn't comparable to fighting words, wearing it would unquestionably cause harm to the relevant ones who encounter it. Owning or creating it might not be a crime, but wearing it in public is endangering the public.
      - brokenmachine 5y ago
        >wearing it in public is endangering the public. Only because you're driving a car that was programmed by monkeys and sold by PT Barnum. If your car can't tell the difference between a street sign and a T-shirt, it's really not fully self driving, is it?
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        I agree that it's a ridiculous hypothetical and any company shipping something like that should also face punishment.
        nemo44x 5y ago
        Only the company shipping that should face punishment. Their code instructed a machine to kill people, etc. The hypothetical t-shirt is data, not code. These are very important distinctions. Code needs to be responsible for its data. I’d even argue that to be used on public road that any self driving code needs to be open source.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Their code instructed a machine to kill people, etc. The hypothetical t-shirt is data, not code. It is data you are intentionally using to hurt someone. If a person legally gained access to a water treatment plant and sent inputs to poison the water, you wouldn't say that person only sent data and the code was at fault. The shirt is inputting data into the car the same way. Tools should be made with safety in mind, but when people use them to cause harm the person is at fault too.

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...
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    > The physical act of owning an explosive can be made illegal and is. Then let me change my example to show legal items being used with the intent to cause harm is still illegal. I'm free to put razors into candy, but if I hand it out on Halloween it'd be illegal. >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. This hypothetical T-shirt isn't comparable to fighting words, wearing it would unquestionably cause harm to the relevant ones who encounter it. Owning or creating it might not be a crime, but wearing it in public is endangering the public.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      >wearing it in public is endangering the public. Only because you're driving a car that was programmed by monkeys and sold by PT Barnum. If your car can't tell the difference between a street sign and a T-shirt, it's really not fully self driving, is it?
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        I agree that it's a ridiculous hypothetical and any company shipping something like that should also face punishment.
        nemo44x 5y ago
        Only the company shipping that should face punishment. Their code instructed a machine to kill people, etc. The hypothetical t-shirt is data, not code. These are very important distinctions. Code needs to be responsible for its data. I’d even argue that to be used on public road that any self driving code needs to be open source.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Their code instructed a machine to kill people, etc. The hypothetical t-shirt is data, not code. It is data you are intentionally using to hurt someone. If a person legally gained access to a water treatment plant and sent inputs to poison the water, you wouldn't say that person only sent data and the code was at fault. The shirt is inputting data into the car the same way. Tools should be made with safety in mind, but when people use them to cause harm the person is at fault too.