3 ms·

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 no

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"?

nobody9999 5y ago
There's a difference between classified information and scientific research. Yes, some scientific research could be classified, but unless the government can show "national security implications" (a pretty low bar, IMHO), they should not be restricting the flow of speech or ideas. A general officer in the military is not only covered by the Constitution, but by the UCMJ[0]. As such, your comparison is flawed. We're (or at least TFA and me) aren't talking about folks subject to NDAs or restrictions based on "national security." Private companies and private citizens can (at least in the US), limit and censor speech and information as much as they want -- and for the most part be supported by the courts (vis a vis NDAs and the like). The government on the other hand is explicitly barred from banning most speech (there are exceptions of course, including libel/slander and/or disclosing classified information to unauthorized folks -- note that publishing such information has been held to be "free speech" -- it's the folks who disclosed such information that could be civilly (in the case of an NDA) or criminally (in the case of classified information) liable. However, the government is barred from restricting speech except in those narrow circumstances. Please explain how such narrow circumstances apply in this case? Or, absent those circumstances, under what legal framework would government restrictions on speech apply even to government-funded research? Please do explain. I'd be fascinated to hear it. I'll repeat, and I'll use the words of those who wrote the law of the land. Hopefully, you'll understand the second time around: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. About which part of the above do you disagree? If you feel the above is in error, I suggest taking the steps defined here[1]. Good luck with that. [0] https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-of-military-justice-ucmj.html https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-... [1] https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
- dnautics 5y ago
  You act as if I haven't read the constitution. I've pored over the constitution so many times, I'm well versed in obscurities down to the twenty dollar clause and the post roads clause. Can you explain to me how classifying content is not an abridgement of free speech in an absolute reading of the constitution? "Congress shall make no law.." It does not say "Congress shall make no law, unless it's classified" The UCMJ is (of course) congressional law, so by your analysis, the UCMJ would be in abeyance of the first amendment.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    You didn't answer my question. Rather, you moved the goalposts. Do that and I'll reciprocate. Have a great day!
    - dnautics 5y ago
      contract law. done.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >contract law. done. That doesn't answer my question. Which was: >Please explain how such narrow circumstances apply in this case? Or, absent those circumstances, under what legal framework would government restrictions on speech apply even to government-funded research? Please do explain. I'd be fascinated to hear it. Are you advocating that all government-funded research should (or already does) have NDAs associated with them? That's news to me. Please provide some documentation for your claim. Yes, Congress has implemented laws that are within the narrow exceptions to the the bar on restriction of speech. How does that apply in this specific case? What you are claiming/proposing is not the law of the land. What changes to the law/constitution are you proposing? I await your response with (hopefully) some actual exposition. Based on your previous writings in this thread, I won't hold my breath.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >You act as if I haven't read the constitution. That's a result of your statements.

nobody9999 5y ago

There's a difference between classified information and scientific research. Yes, some scientific research could be classified, but unless the government can show "national security implications" (a pretty low bar, IMHO), they should not be restricting the flow of speech or ideas. A general officer in the military is not only covered by the Constitution, but by the UCMJ[0]. As such, your comparison is flawed. We're (or at least TFA and me) aren't talking about folks subject to NDAs or restrictions based on "national security." Private companies and private citizens can (at least in the US), limit and censor speech and information as much as they want -- and for the most part be supported by the courts (vis a vis NDAs and the like). The government on the other hand is explicitly barred from banning most speech (there are exceptions of course, including libel/slander and/or disclosing classified information to unauthorized folks -- note that publishing such information has been held to be "free speech" -- it's the folks who disclosed such information that could be civilly (in the case of an NDA) or criminally (in the case of classified information) liable. However, the government is barred from restricting speech except in those narrow circumstances. Please explain how such narrow circumstances apply in this case? Or, absent those circumstances, under what legal framework would government restrictions on speech apply even to government-funded research? Please do explain. I'd be fascinated to hear it. I'll repeat, and I'll use the words of those who wrote the law of the land. Hopefully, you'll understand the second time around: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. About which part of the above do you disagree? If you feel the above is in error, I suggest taking the steps defined here[1]. Good luck with that. [0] https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-of-military-justice-ucmj.html https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-... [1] https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

dnautics 5y ago
You act as if I haven't read the constitution. I've pored over the constitution so many times, I'm well versed in obscurities down to the twenty dollar clause and the post roads clause. Can you explain to me how classifying content is not an abridgement of free speech in an absolute reading of the constitution? "Congress shall make no law.." It does not say "Congress shall make no law, unless it's classified" The UCMJ is (of course) congressional law, so by your analysis, the UCMJ would be in abeyance of the first amendment.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  You didn't answer my question. Rather, you moved the goalposts. Do that and I'll reciprocate. Have a great day!
  - dnautics 5y ago
    contract law. done.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >contract law. done. That doesn't answer my question. Which was: >Please explain how such narrow circumstances apply in this case? Or, absent those circumstances, under what legal framework would government restrictions on speech apply even to government-funded research? Please do explain. I'd be fascinated to hear it. Are you advocating that all government-funded research should (or already does) have NDAs associated with them? That's news to me. Please provide some documentation for your claim. Yes, Congress has implemented laws that are within the narrow exceptions to the the bar on restriction of speech. How does that apply in this specific case? What you are claiming/proposing is not the law of the land. What changes to the law/constitution are you proposing? I await your response with (hopefully) some actual exposition. Based on your previous writings in this thread, I won't hold my breath.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >You act as if I haven't read the constitution. That's a result of your statements.