4 ms·

The First Amendment rights of corporations is at play here. > The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a st

by yarg 4y ago

The First Amendment rights of corporations is at play here. > The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch) There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related). It's murky, and subject to government overreach. > but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to publish on Github servers. The first constrains the government, it in no way constrains private entities. In fact (given the corporate personhood), to require that a private entity publish content from a third party would be compelled speech, and a breach of the entity's first amendment rights.

jayparth 4y ago
What I took it as was “the first protects Green’s right to republish on GitHub [from government censorship].” Of course the first does not compel GitHub to allow him to do anything on their servers, but it does protect what both parties consented to do from government censorship.
retcore 4y ago
> There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I don't believe it's murky at all, but defined deliberately in fuzzy terms in a number of important ways, one of which is the avoidance of precipitation of criminality. Criminality defined as that which is harmful to society. Although it may sound weak, compared to the presumed unfettered principles invoked above, should one or other of a separating couple used Tornado Cash to rinse common property funds, something that isn't drug dealing or terrorism anyhow, nevertheless it's laundering and using a device to commit a crime without which device that crime may not be possible. Federal proceedings against Tornado Cash have given the unlawful enterprise unprecedented profile and it follows that the motivation for anyone who strives for continuance of the same or similar, in light of the reasons for federal action, could be construed as being potential criminal too. Frankly I am stunned in the era that recognizes hate speech, that the automatic right to unfiltered and inconsequential freedom of speech is claimed so crudely, so reflexively and on such narrow and unexplained grounds..
- gujkk7 4y ago
- omniglottal 4y ago
  Potentially criminal acts are legal.
salawat 4y ago
>I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related Common misconception. You can post the machinist drawings for any unclassified (or classified, if somehow you came across them without having signed any paperwork related to security clearances). That is protected by the Courts. Where you get into hot water is ITAR and restricted exports where free speech runs into the whole national security/foreign affairs jurisdiction by the Feds. You cannot post the manual for an F-16 for instance, in such a way as it could be accessed by adversaries of the United States. Access to that type of information has to be gated behind some form of arcane onboarding process to ensure one is actually authorized to see it. There was an attempt at gating 3d printed gun patterns I think, but all the courts would let through is that a manufacturer must ensure the recipient is a U.S. Citizen, so it switched from published on website, to shipped on CD iirc. Haven't checked on recent developments.

by yarg 4y ago

jayparth 4y ago

What I took it as was “the first protects Green’s right to republish on GitHub [from government censorship].” Of course the first does not compel GitHub to allow him to do anything on their servers, but it does protect what both parties consented to do from government censorship.

retcore 4y ago

> There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I don't believe it's murky at all, but defined deliberately in fuzzy terms in a number of important ways, one of which is the avoidance of precipitation of criminality. Criminality defined as that which is harmful to society. Although it may sound weak, compared to the presumed unfettered principles invoked above, should one or other of a separating couple used Tornado Cash to rinse common property funds, something that isn't drug dealing or terrorism anyhow, nevertheless it's laundering and using a device to commit a crime without which device that crime may not be possible. Federal proceedings against Tornado Cash have given the unlawful enterprise unprecedented profile and it follows that the motivation for anyone who strives for continuance of the same or similar, in light of the reasons for federal action, could be construed as being potential criminal too. Frankly I am stunned in the era that recognizes hate speech, that the automatic right to unfiltered and inconsequential freedom of speech is claimed so crudely, so reflexively and on such narrow and unexplained grounds..

gujkk7 4y ago
omniglottal 4y ago
Potentially criminal acts are legal.

salawat 4y ago

>I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related Common misconception. You can post the machinist drawings for any unclassified (or classified, if somehow you came across them without having signed any paperwork related to security clearances). That is protected by the Courts. Where you get into hot water is ITAR and restricted exports where free speech runs into the whole national security/foreign affairs jurisdiction by the Feds. You cannot post the manual for an F-16 for instance, in such a way as it could be accessed by adversaries of the United States. Access to that type of information has to be gated behind some form of arcane onboarding process to ensure one is actually authorized to see it. There was an attempt at gating 3d printed gun patterns I think, but all the courts would let through is that a manufacturer must ensure the recipient is a U.S. Citizen, so it switched from published on website, to shipped on CD iirc. Haven't checked on recent developments.