3 ms·
I think the ball is being hidden here while responding to a strawman, here's me waving the ball around high in the air: I agree: other than innumerable excepti
by refulgentis 2y ago
I think the ball is being hidden here while responding to a strawman, here's me waving the ball around high in the air:
I agree: other than innumerable exceptions*, 1st amendment says you don't get punished for just speaking something.
* slander & death threats are scratching the surface, a brief tour of SEC cases alone would leave you with hundreds. Easiest one for you to see why the simplistic view espoused is blinkered, is probably...idk, disturbing the peace.
- sterlind 2y agoI apologize for strawmanning, I misunderstood your position. Yes, disturbing the peace is such an example, though like disorderly conduct it's somewhat prone to abuse as a charge. My position is that 1A ought to protect the publication and discussion of vulnerabilities, encryption algorithms, software etc. as speech. Like how PGP was first published as a book listing the source code on printed pages. Unless a tool has absolutely no redeeming value besides breaking the law. So I think Switch emulators ought to be protected, if they can be used for some legitimate purpose like benchmarking, homebrew, etc. (minus any copyrighted ROM dumps, of course.) Same with youtube-dlp, same with forensic tools like Ghidra and unpackers.