6 ms·

If you didn't take money from the federal government, I would be inclined to agree with you, that export controls are an abridgement of the freedom of speech, b

If you didn't take money from the federal government, I would be inclined to agree with you, that export controls are an abridgement of the freedom of speech, but if your work is taxpayer-funded, then the government absolutely has the authority to restrict how you use the fruits of those funds; if you cannot abide by them then perhaps consider stop taking federal funds?

matthewdgreen 5y ago
I think you are 100% backwards in your thinking here. If the US taxpayer funds research then public funders actually have a very high bar in their ability to restrict the publication of that research. For the simple reason that the taxpayer funds it and government restrictions on speech face a very high Constitutional bar. By contrast if I take funding from Amazon or Apple it’s much easier for them to demand NDAs and speech restrictions. (Which I have been asked for and wouldn’t agree to.)
- dnautics 5y ago
  you are right in practice, but my argument is not about what is de facto the case, but what should be the case. > government restrictions on speech Well this obviously should not generally be the case. If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, so arguably way more "protected" by the constitution than a subcontractor awardee of a grant, which could be considered to "create a legal veil", then can you claim "first amendment" if you pass military secrets on to an adversarial government? Of course not.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    There is a huge amount of constitutional jurisprudence around the notion of national security clearance and all of it rests on the idea that it is a strictly limited exception to the First Amendment, generally one that is used sparingly and only when needed. This is why private citizens must volunteer to obtain security clearances. The General you speak of is presumably a volunteer who also agreed to be bound by stricter rules around classified data. The NSF does not (generally) fund classified research. They fund unclassified research at open academic Universities. If the researcher in TFA had joined a military lab and submitted to a clearance, this would be an open and shut case. He did not do anything of the sort, and so the prosecutors were forced to hunt down some workaround to achieve their desired result, then ultimately drop a groundless case.
nobody9999 5y ago
>has the authority to restrict how you use the fruits of those funds; if you cannot abide by them then perhaps consider stop taking federal funds? Not sure if you're familiar with this bit[0]: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech*, Are you arguing that taking public money obviates the above? I'd say that since the government is involved, the above (are you not familiar with that bit?) is absolutely relevant and needs to be respected -- given that it's the law of the land. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
- dnautics 5y ago
  going to quote my sibling child comment here: If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, then can you claim "first amendment" if you pass military secrets on to an adversarial government? Of course not. I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen. Suppose you are a private citizen and manage to snap a picture of a secret research plane coming out of area 51, while not in the bounds of the facility. You will very likely enjoy first amendment privileges.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen. I didn't realize that being an academic at a private research institution was equivalent to being a member of the armed forces. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I should have realized that they were exactly the same thing. Please.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      Listen, if you work at a private research institution and you raise funds through a nonprofit (like, say HHMI), then by all means, do what you want. You are not beholden to the taxpayer. Money from the government absolutely comes with strings attached. Do you think that an employee of Lockheed Martin would be able leak secret plane information on a government contract to an adversarial country with impunity, just because it is a "private company owned by private citizens", thus gaining "first amendment protections"?

matthewdgreen 5y ago

I think you are 100% backwards in your thinking here. If the US taxpayer funds research then public funders actually have a very high bar in their ability to restrict the publication of that research. For the simple reason that the taxpayer funds it and government restrictions on speech face a very high Constitutional bar. By contrast if I take funding from Amazon or Apple it’s much easier for them to demand NDAs and speech restrictions. (Which I have been asked for and wouldn’t agree to.)

dnautics 5y ago
you are right in practice, but my argument is not about what is de facto the case, but what should be the case. > government restrictions on speech Well this obviously should not generally be the case. If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, so arguably way more "protected" by the constitution than a subcontractor awardee of a grant, which could be considered to "create a legal veil", then can you claim "first amendment" if you pass military secrets on to an adversarial government? Of course not.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  There is a huge amount of constitutional jurisprudence around the notion of national security clearance and all of it rests on the idea that it is a strictly limited exception to the First Amendment, generally one that is used sparingly and only when needed. This is why private citizens must volunteer to obtain security clearances. The General you speak of is presumably a volunteer who also agreed to be bound by stricter rules around classified data. The NSF does not (generally) fund classified research. They fund unclassified research at open academic Universities. If the researcher in TFA had joined a military lab and submitted to a clearance, this would be an open and shut case. He did not do anything of the sort, and so the prosecutors were forced to hunt down some workaround to achieve their desired result, then ultimately drop a groundless case.

nobody9999 5y ago

>has the authority to restrict how you use the fruits of those funds; if you cannot abide by them then perhaps consider stop taking federal funds? Not sure if you're familiar with this bit[0]: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech*, Are you arguing that taking public money obviates the above? I'd say that since the government is involved, the above (are you not familiar with that bit?) is absolutely relevant and needs to be respected -- given that it's the law of the land. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

dnautics 5y ago
going to quote my sibling child comment here: If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, then can you claim "first amendment" if you pass military secrets on to an adversarial government? Of course not. I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen. Suppose you are a private citizen and manage to snap a picture of a secret research plane coming out of area 51, while not in the bounds of the facility. You will very likely enjoy first amendment privileges.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I suggest you think about why a general gets treated differently than a private citizen. I didn't realize that being an academic at a private research institution was equivalent to being a member of the armed forces. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I should have realized that they were exactly the same thing. Please.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Listen, if you work at a private research institution and you raise funds through a nonprofit (like, say HHMI), then by all means, do what you want. You are not beholden to the taxpayer. Money from the government absolutely comes with strings attached. Do you think that an employee of Lockheed Martin would be able leak secret plane information on a government contract to an adversarial country with impunity, just because it is a "private company owned by private citizens", thus gaining "first amendment protections"?