6 ms·

I respect your principled stance on one hand, while on the other I’m amazed that someone as successful as you hasn’t learned that logic doesn’t dictate how gove

by EA-3167 2mo ago

I respect your principled stance on one hand, while on the other I’m amazed that someone as successful as you hasn’t learned that logic doesn’t dictate how governments work. Don’t make a target of yourself, there are countless ways for a government to make your life miserable.

lrvick 2mo ago
I will never show fear to tech-illiterate bullies trying to compromise constitutionally protected rights. That is how freedoms get quietly lost. Users need to see that the people in positions of influence in FOSS projects they trust are not afraid of this bullshit. I -hope- someone is stupid enough to take a case like this to court so we can establish some much needed case law here. These overreaches deserve to be contested.
- otterley 2mo ago
  > constitutionally protected rights Wait, which constitutionally protected right is that? I'm an attorney and constitutional scholar and am particularly interested in what right you believe is being violated here.
  - misphrasing 2mo ago
    Code is speech. Forcing someone to implement something is legally-compelled speech, assuming no complicating factor like commerce.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      That argument has been going on for decades, and has had few victories in the court system. The DMCA, which prohibits trafficking in anticircumvention devices, even though there's a lot of code in them, is still alive and well.
      - lrvick 2mo ago
        And the DMCA has been rightfully weakened to the point that archive.org has every Nintendo Gamecube game ever made hosted for the public, for years, uncontested. So too will these other silly laws go I expect.
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Not only that, but people like myself are working on underground distribution networks in case they’re ever needed. Absolute worst case we’ll do sneakernet. More likely we’ll just distribute via overlay networks. Some of us are crazy enough to be full on free speech martyrs, believe it or not.
    - hnlmorg 2mo ago
      I’m not a lawyer and even I know that argument would never hold up given the plethora of other laws that have been implemented through software. Not to mention copyright and patent claims too.
      - lrvick 2mo ago
        Being afraid and hoping you are never forced to add code to a project you do not want to add is letting the chilling effects work as designed. We need to all loudly and publicly say "Fuck off, I will defend my rights if needed", so they understand how expensive the fight is going to be. Fear is power. Do not give your enemies power.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
        otterley 2mo ago
        > hoping you are never forced to add code to a project you do not want to add You keep saying that, but that's not the realistic outcome. The realistic outcome isn't an injunction forcing you to add code. It'd be to force you to pull it out of circulation.
        lrvick 2mo ago
        They cannot force me to do either. But it would be a fascinating case study to watch them try. I feel it would only help prove the decentralized censorship-resistant tactics of the project work as intended. Government overreach should be in the threat model of every FOSS project.
        hnlmorg 2mo ago
        There are already case studies that demonstrate governments can do exactly what the GP lawyer claimed could happen. You’re not treading any new and untested ground here.
        hnlmorg 2mo ago
    - soulofmischief 2mo ago
      Is is also clear that there are major deficits in our Constitution but that the amendment process has failed to survive a modern world. Any of our original forefathers would recognize today's American federal government as an overreach from their indended form of government. The only reason we aren't seeing a Boston Tea Party 2.0 over the recent string of coordinated assaults against our inalienable human rights is because surveillance capitalism is already coarsely achieving its goals of suppressing any civic participation which exists between the spectrum of ineffective political protest to the most desperate, radical action. Some of those among us simply cannot drink this koolaid. A quote from MLK, Jr: I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Further reading https://letterfromjail.com/ https://letterfromjail.com/
      - blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
        Yeah but most of y’all wouldn’t accept the imprisonment willingly.
        soulofmischief 2mo ago
        Who is "most of y'all"? Sounds like a generalization to me and a poor attempt at an appeal to character in order to undermine the perspective I've shared. Have you been to prison? I've been incarcerated before already after having my rights violated. Let's not go there. Make less assumptions.
        otterley 2mo ago
        Incarcerated temporarily (e.g. awaiting trial or a prosecution decision), or actually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment? These two things are not the same.
        lrvick 2mo ago
        No one is being convicted and doing hard time for refusing to add age verification to a Linux distro. This is just more fear mongering. It would be a fine or a few days of jail until bail is posted, at worst. And then a media shit show where the public is certain to side with the developer who is having their rights violated to discourage this from ever happening again. The public even got the back of weev for his bullshit arrest. Weev, one of the shittiest people to ever live. But rights are rights.
    - kube-system 2mo ago
      There is pretty solid case law for the constitutionality of a variety of compliance requirements. If you can comply by being silent then they aren't really compelling you to do say anything.
- pixl97 2mo ago
  While they may take you to court over this, make sure you can survive sitting in jail at first if government decides to make an example of you. And where code is speech, is a distribution speech? There's a lot of places for this to go sideways on you personally.
  - lrvick 2mo ago
    The fact people are scared, or scared for me, is in and of itself a problem. But lets all wait for nothing at all to happen. Then confidence can grow over time that this is unenforceable in any effective way. They should go back to trying to police piracy via bittorrent (lol).
    - EA-3167 2mo ago
      I think the issue here is that while the people here are aware of the history and "utility" of laws like the one above, most people aren't and right now "regulate social media, the internet, and what my kid does with computers" is having quite a day. Inevitably all of this is framed in terms of keeping children safe, whereas piracy is at most a misdemeanor of very little consequence. Although I have no doubt that courts would ultimately side with you, the chance of becoming even a transient focus of a frustrated AG or congressperson looking to pin blame on "Out of touch and recalcitrant techies, the very ones who created this problem," is chilling. It's meant to be chilling, but it often works because he reality of what you'd go through on the way to eventual victory isn't trivial. Maybe you're willing to go through the courts (public opinion and otherwise), but if so the first thing any attorney you employ will beg you to do is stop talking the way you are. tl;dr I think taking a stand is great, I support that, I think doing it now is a good idea. I don't think you should talk about it in public though, especially not in a literal, "Come and get me" way.
      - pixl97 2mo ago
        Ya, I think op needs to study the history of civil rights in the US on how to do these things. Quite often the people that were getting arrested and challenging the state were specifically chosen because they didn't have any kind of dirt to dig up. The state is perfectly fine with playing dirty inside and outside the courtroom. The state would love the person brining a constitutional challenge to suddenly be marred in the eyes of the public as some kind of deviant.
- JoshTriplett 2mo ago
  > I will never show fear "never show fear" and "never engage intelligence" are two different things. Understand what people will do in response to your actions, and act accordingly to achieve the outcomes you want. Please by all means fight the law, and do so intelligently in a way that will actually help.
  - dooglius 2mo ago
    Can you be specific in how you think he is behaving unintelligently, and what you think that people will do in response to his actions?
    - otterley 2mo ago
      I'll bite. His statements in this very forum could he used against him as evidence of intent to violate the law, should he be prosecuted someday. There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent.
      - dooglius 2mo ago
        > There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent. Most people prioritize their finances (and non-imprisonment) over their rights, and attorneys will optimize for that expressed preference. GP has clearly indicated his priorities are different. That has nothing to do with intelligence. Someone having a different set of values than you does not constitute unintelligence on his part.
        kube-system 2mo ago
        GP said they wanted to take it to court. I presume that means they wanted to win, in which case the best strategy is to discuss the issue in private with an attorney before making public statements that could undermine your ability to win. If the actual priority here is advocacy, with no real desire to litigate, then I'd buy that.

by EA-3167 2mo ago

lrvick 2mo ago

I will never show fear to tech-illiterate bullies trying to compromise constitutionally protected rights. That is how freedoms get quietly lost. Users need to see that the people in positions of influence in FOSS projects they trust are not afraid of this bullshit. I -hope- someone is stupid enough to take a case like this to court so we can establish some much needed case law here. These overreaches deserve to be contested.

otterley 2mo ago
> constitutionally protected rights Wait, which constitutionally protected right is that? I'm an attorney and constitutional scholar and am particularly interested in what right you believe is being violated here.
- misphrasing 2mo ago
  Code is speech. Forcing someone to implement something is legally-compelled speech, assuming no complicating factor like commerce.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    That argument has been going on for decades, and has had few victories in the court system. The DMCA, which prohibits trafficking in anticircumvention devices, even though there's a lot of code in them, is still alive and well.
    - lrvick 2mo ago
      And the DMCA has been rightfully weakened to the point that archive.org has every Nintendo Gamecube game ever made hosted for the public, for years, uncontested. So too will these other silly laws go I expect.
      - iamnothere 2mo ago
        Not only that, but people like myself are working on underground distribution networks in case they’re ever needed. Absolute worst case we’ll do sneakernet. More likely we’ll just distribute via overlay networks. Some of us are crazy enough to be full on free speech martyrs, believe it or not.
  - hnlmorg 2mo ago
    I’m not a lawyer and even I know that argument would never hold up given the plethora of other laws that have been implemented through software. Not to mention copyright and patent claims too.
    - lrvick 2mo ago
      Being afraid and hoping you are never forced to add code to a project you do not want to add is letting the chilling effects work as designed. We need to all loudly and publicly say "Fuck off, I will defend my rights if needed", so they understand how expensive the fight is going to be. Fear is power. Do not give your enemies power.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - otterley 2mo ago
        > hoping you are never forced to add code to a project you do not want to add You keep saying that, but that's not the realistic outcome. The realistic outcome isn't an injunction forcing you to add code. It'd be to force you to pull it out of circulation.
        lrvick 2mo ago
        They cannot force me to do either. But it would be a fascinating case study to watch them try. I feel it would only help prove the decentralized censorship-resistant tactics of the project work as intended. Government overreach should be in the threat model of every FOSS project.
        hnlmorg 2mo ago
        There are already case studies that demonstrate governments can do exactly what the GP lawyer claimed could happen. You’re not treading any new and untested ground here.
      - hnlmorg 2mo ago
  - soulofmischief 2mo ago
    Is is also clear that there are major deficits in our Constitution but that the amendment process has failed to survive a modern world. Any of our original forefathers would recognize today's American federal government as an overreach from their indended form of government. The only reason we aren't seeing a Boston Tea Party 2.0 over the recent string of coordinated assaults against our inalienable human rights is because surveillance capitalism is already coarsely achieving its goals of suppressing any civic participation which exists between the spectrum of ineffective political protest to the most desperate, radical action. Some of those among us simply cannot drink this koolaid. A quote from MLK, Jr: I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Further reading https://letterfromjail.com/ https://letterfromjail.com/
    - blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
      Yeah but most of y’all wouldn’t accept the imprisonment willingly.
      - soulofmischief 2mo ago
        Who is "most of y'all"? Sounds like a generalization to me and a poor attempt at an appeal to character in order to undermine the perspective I've shared. Have you been to prison? I've been incarcerated before already after having my rights violated. Let's not go there. Make less assumptions.
        otterley 2mo ago
        Incarcerated temporarily (e.g. awaiting trial or a prosecution decision), or actually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment? These two things are not the same.
        lrvick 2mo ago
        No one is being convicted and doing hard time for refusing to add age verification to a Linux distro. This is just more fear mongering. It would be a fine or a few days of jail until bail is posted, at worst. And then a media shit show where the public is certain to side with the developer who is having their rights violated to discourage this from ever happening again. The public even got the back of weev for his bullshit arrest. Weev, one of the shittiest people to ever live. But rights are rights.
  - kube-system 2mo ago
    There is pretty solid case law for the constitutionality of a variety of compliance requirements. If you can comply by being silent then they aren't really compelling you to do say anything.
pixl97 2mo ago
While they may take you to court over this, make sure you can survive sitting in jail at first if government decides to make an example of you. And where code is speech, is a distribution speech? There's a lot of places for this to go sideways on you personally.
- lrvick 2mo ago
  The fact people are scared, or scared for me, is in and of itself a problem. But lets all wait for nothing at all to happen. Then confidence can grow over time that this is unenforceable in any effective way. They should go back to trying to police piracy via bittorrent (lol).
  - EA-3167 2mo ago
    I think the issue here is that while the people here are aware of the history and "utility" of laws like the one above, most people aren't and right now "regulate social media, the internet, and what my kid does with computers" is having quite a day. Inevitably all of this is framed in terms of keeping children safe, whereas piracy is at most a misdemeanor of very little consequence. Although I have no doubt that courts would ultimately side with you, the chance of becoming even a transient focus of a frustrated AG or congressperson looking to pin blame on "Out of touch and recalcitrant techies, the very ones who created this problem," is chilling. It's meant to be chilling, but it often works because he reality of what you'd go through on the way to eventual victory isn't trivial. Maybe you're willing to go through the courts (public opinion and otherwise), but if so the first thing any attorney you employ will beg you to do is stop talking the way you are. tl;dr I think taking a stand is great, I support that, I think doing it now is a good idea. I don't think you should talk about it in public though, especially not in a literal, "Come and get me" way.
    - pixl97 2mo ago
      Ya, I think op needs to study the history of civil rights in the US on how to do these things. Quite often the people that were getting arrested and challenging the state were specifically chosen because they didn't have any kind of dirt to dig up. The state is perfectly fine with playing dirty inside and outside the courtroom. The state would love the person brining a constitutional challenge to suddenly be marred in the eyes of the public as some kind of deviant.
JoshTriplett 2mo ago
> I will never show fear "never show fear" and "never engage intelligence" are two different things. Understand what people will do in response to your actions, and act accordingly to achieve the outcomes you want. Please by all means fight the law, and do so intelligently in a way that will actually help.
- dooglius 2mo ago
  Can you be specific in how you think he is behaving unintelligently, and what you think that people will do in response to his actions?
  - otterley 2mo ago
    I'll bite. His statements in this very forum could he used against him as evidence of intent to violate the law, should he be prosecuted someday. There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent.
    - dooglius 2mo ago
      > There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent. Most people prioritize their finances (and non-imprisonment) over their rights, and attorneys will optimize for that expressed preference. GP has clearly indicated his priorities are different. That has nothing to do with intelligence. Someone having a different set of values than you does not constitute unintelligence on his part.
      - kube-system 2mo ago
        GP said they wanted to take it to court. I presume that means they wanted to win, in which case the best strategy is to discuss the issue in private with an attorney before making public statements that could undermine your ability to win. If the actual priority here is advocacy, with no real desire to litigate, then I'd buy that.