6 ms·

Could someone explain why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech? Sounds like there were not government secrets nor did the expert have a security clearanc

Could someone explain why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech? Sounds like there were not government secrets nor did the expert have a security clearance that would have held him to a higher standard. If Tor researchers gave a presentation at a security conference on how to install Tor, knowing full well that some would use it to engage in the proliferation of CSAM, would that also not fall under free speech?

spacemanmatt 5y ago
freedom of speech is not absolute. it's as simple as that. the guy violated a federal sanction.
- egberts1 5y ago
  except the charges is not on about freedom of speech, not at all, not even close.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    The first sentence in the article is "The US sentenced a blockchain researcher to more than five years in prison after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to help North Korea evade sanctions using cryptocurrency." Asked why what he did wouldn't be protected by freedom of speech, the parent replied "freedom of speech is not absolute ... the guy violated a federal sanction." I don't understand what you're implying about this thread of conversation - it seems fairly reasonable. The GP asked about freedom of speech - the parent didn't imply this is a freedom of speech issue. They explained why it isn't.
CamperBob2 5y ago
The problem isn't so much the presentation or the content, as it is the transaction. Doing business with North Korea is highly restricted, as it should be, in order to maintain the integrity of US and international trade sanctions against the Kims. Russia now finds itself in much the same position thanks to Putin, so it's probably a good idea for everyone doing business there to familiarize themselves with economic actions being taken against that regime. Few people in the West ever attempted to do business with Pyongyang, but that's not true of Moscow. There's a lot more legal exposure, much of which will come as a surprise to those affected by it.
meheleventyone 5y ago
> Could someone explain why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech? North Korea is under international sanctions and part of that means you can't aid them. Explaining how to launder money and evade sanctions to a general audience is probably fine. Explaining how to launder money and evade sanctions to North Korea is against the law.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  You can almost certainly get away with "If I were North Korea, here's how I would launder money" as an academic article. Presenting it in Pyongyang seems like a pretty bright and clear "Aiding and abetting enemies of the US"
vmception 5y ago
If the security conference was in a place sanctioned under the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act, then yes. He applied for a travel exemption, and was denied. He went anyway. He was charged with that, not the speech. That's how its enforced, for this specific reason. Regulate the intermediary to control the desired behavior. Don't regulate the individual with first amendment rights.
- orangepurple 5y ago
  The USA junta will punish you if you go against them, constitution be damned, the judges are on their side.
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    Freedom of speech is meant to preserve democracy domestically, not be a free for all to aid enemies for profit. Any sane state, including free democracies, would prohibit residents from teaching rogue enemy nations how to avoid sanctions.
    - ttybird2 5y ago
      I do not think that this is a widely held view. Regarding the US constitution for example, Part of Bernstein v. United States was the complaint that DJB was not able to legally talk to or teach about cryptography to cryptographers and students that are not US citizens. As for the "freedom of speech" as a general concept, I think that it is more of an individualist than a collectivist principle. It does not refer to countries or groups by itself, it is the right for entities to speak freely.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Ermmmm not here. When you can afford to tango with them, they don't take surprising constitutional views actually. That part is in your favor. Its more about affording to get that far, in other cases. This case isn't one of those? He wasn't charged for the speech, he was charged for violating a travel and business sanction after explicitly asking for an exemption and being denied. He went out of his way to hop over barriers placed by the government, and got charged for hopping over after telling the government he was interested in hopping over. They watched him hop over, they didn't charge him for the speech he gave after hopping over. Hopping over isn't a constitutional right.
happytoexplain 5y ago
The issue is not the subjective "will this be used for evil", but the more objective "does this violate international sanctions", which it seems to. It has very little to do directly/exclusively with cryptocurrency or crypto in general.
chickenpotpie 5y ago
Same reason you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it interferes with national defense. Schenck v. United States is an interesting case where the supreme court ruled that passing out fliers to encourage resistance to the draft is not protected by the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- ttybird2 5y ago
  Funnily enough passing out said fliers is exactly what I believe "freedom of speech" is meant to protect.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
  - chickenpotpie 5y ago
    I read the Atlantic article, but I don't think they made a strong enough argument to justify retiring the quote. Regardless of the circumstances that it was first used, it's meaning is still very true. It is still illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater and there are many exceptions to the first amendment. An american citizen cannot verbally harass someone, they cannot share child pornography, and they cannot go around telling everyone how to make a nuclear bomb.
    - simoncion 5y ago
      You should read the Popehat essay. The guy is a former Federal prosecutor. He knows what he's talking about. Moreover, you forgot to read this part of what you linked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subsequent_jurisprudence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subse... > A unanimous Court in a brief per curiam opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), abandoned the disfavored language while seemingly applying the reasoning of Schenck to reverse the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member prosecuted for giving an inflammatory speech. The Court said that speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. > An american citizen cannot verbally harass someone... They can, actually. See the quote from the wikipedia article above. > ...they cannot go around telling everyone how to make a nuclear bomb. _Pretty_ sure that they can. It's widely said that any physics graduate student can work out how to make a useful but basic nuke. The issue is _actually building one_, or sending the materials to construct one to a sanctioned nation. First Amendment protections are _broad_ and exceptions to them have been (historically) carved out with _great_ reluctance. This is a feature, not a bug.
TheGigaChad 5y ago

spacemanmatt 5y ago

freedom of speech is not absolute. it's as simple as that. the guy violated a federal sanction.

egberts1 5y ago
except the charges is not on about freedom of speech, not at all, not even close.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  The first sentence in the article is "The US sentenced a blockchain researcher to more than five years in prison after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to help North Korea evade sanctions using cryptocurrency." Asked why what he did wouldn't be protected by freedom of speech, the parent replied "freedom of speech is not absolute ... the guy violated a federal sanction." I don't understand what you're implying about this thread of conversation - it seems fairly reasonable. The GP asked about freedom of speech - the parent didn't imply this is a freedom of speech issue. They explained why it isn't.

CamperBob2 5y ago

The problem isn't so much the presentation or the content, as it is the transaction. Doing business with North Korea is highly restricted, as it should be, in order to maintain the integrity of US and international trade sanctions against the Kims. Russia now finds itself in much the same position thanks to Putin, so it's probably a good idea for everyone doing business there to familiarize themselves with economic actions being taken against that regime. Few people in the West ever attempted to do business with Pyongyang, but that's not true of Moscow. There's a lot more legal exposure, much of which will come as a surprise to those affected by it.

meheleventyone 5y ago

> Could someone explain why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech? North Korea is under international sanctions and part of that means you can't aid them. Explaining how to launder money and evade sanctions to a general audience is probably fine. Explaining how to launder money and evade sanctions to North Korea is against the law.

GauntletWizard 5y ago
You can almost certainly get away with "If I were North Korea, here's how I would launder money" as an academic article. Presenting it in Pyongyang seems like a pretty bright and clear "Aiding and abetting enemies of the US"

vmception 5y ago

If the security conference was in a place sanctioned under the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act, then yes. He applied for a travel exemption, and was denied. He went anyway. He was charged with that, not the speech. That's how its enforced, for this specific reason. Regulate the intermediary to control the desired behavior. Don't regulate the individual with first amendment rights.

orangepurple 5y ago
The USA junta will punish you if you go against them, constitution be damned, the judges are on their side.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is meant to preserve democracy domestically, not be a free for all to aid enemies for profit. Any sane state, including free democracies, would prohibit residents from teaching rogue enemy nations how to avoid sanctions.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    I do not think that this is a widely held view. Regarding the US constitution for example, Part of Bernstein v. United States was the complaint that DJB was not able to legally talk to or teach about cryptography to cryptographers and students that are not US citizens. As for the "freedom of speech" as a general concept, I think that it is more of an individualist than a collectivist principle. It does not refer to countries or groups by itself, it is the right for entities to speak freely.
- vmception 5y ago
  Ermmmm not here. When you can afford to tango with them, they don't take surprising constitutional views actually. That part is in your favor. Its more about affording to get that far, in other cases. This case isn't one of those? He wasn't charged for the speech, he was charged for violating a travel and business sanction after explicitly asking for an exemption and being denied. He went out of his way to hop over barriers placed by the government, and got charged for hopping over after telling the government he was interested in hopping over. They watched him hop over, they didn't charge him for the speech he gave after hopping over. Hopping over isn't a constitutional right.

happytoexplain 5y ago

The issue is not the subjective "will this be used for evil", but the more objective "does this violate international sanctions", which it seems to. It has very little to do directly/exclusively with cryptocurrency or crypto in general.

chickenpotpie 5y ago

Same reason you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it interferes with national defense. Schenck v. United States is an interesting case where the supreme court ruled that passing out fliers to encourage resistance to the draft is not protected by the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

ttybird2 5y ago
Funnily enough passing out said fliers is exactly what I believe "freedom of speech" is meant to protect.
ceejayoz 5y ago
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- chickenpotpie 5y ago
  I read the Atlantic article, but I don't think they made a strong enough argument to justify retiring the quote. Regardless of the circumstances that it was first used, it's meaning is still very true. It is still illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater and there are many exceptions to the first amendment. An american citizen cannot verbally harass someone, they cannot share child pornography, and they cannot go around telling everyone how to make a nuclear bomb.
  - simoncion 5y ago
    You should read the Popehat essay. The guy is a former Federal prosecutor. He knows what he's talking about. Moreover, you forgot to read this part of what you linked to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subsequent_jurisprudence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subse... > A unanimous Court in a brief per curiam opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), abandoned the disfavored language while seemingly applying the reasoning of Schenck to reverse the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member prosecuted for giving an inflammatory speech. The Court said that speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. > An american citizen cannot verbally harass someone... They can, actually. See the quote from the wikipedia article above. > ...they cannot go around telling everyone how to make a nuclear bomb. _Pretty_ sure that they can. It's widely said that any physics graduate student can work out how to make a useful but basic nuke. The issue is _actually building one_, or sending the materials to construct one to a sanctioned nation. First Amendment protections are _broad_ and exceptions to them have been (historically) carved out with _great_ reluctance. This is a feature, not a bug.

TheGigaChad 5y ago