9 ms·

Cody Wilson, Who Posted Gun Instructions Online, Sues State Department

76 points by jordanbaucke 11y ago

CHY872 11y ago
Just as some additional information, being prosecuted for publishing the blueprints to a very dangerous weapon is a textbook (as in, I read it in a textbook) example of where it is generally believed that your right to free speech does not provide a good defence. Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.
- btilly 11y ago
  Generally believed by whom? The classic case on this topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_I.... And nobody knows what the court would have ruled because once the blueprints for the hydrogen bomb were reprinted widely, the government decided that there was no point in continuing the case.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Certainly not generally believed by anyone (including lawyers) I know. There's not much to interpret in "...shall make no law..." The problem, as stated everywhere around this post, is who draws the line, considering the line is against the letter and spirit of the law. The whole reason the clause "...shall make no law..." is there is because any law is self-serving to a group of people wishing to control another group. While you may consider weapons speech to be over a line you have arbitrarily drawn in the sand, this guy over here believes hate speech is a more dangerous type of speech and would like to draw his own line. Pretty soon the government considers anti-government speech to be "hate speech" against the powers that be... "No" law. Not "not many" laws.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means. Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.
    - talmand 11y ago
      I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?
      - rayiner 11y ago
        He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning. Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet. Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned. Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.
  - CHY872 11y ago
    The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech. For example, the espionage act has been ruled constitutional. Military officers are prohibited from releasing classified information. You're in trouble if you call in a bomb threat. You segue onto hate speech and drawing lines; this seems irrelevant here. Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison. Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison. If it were the case that the constitution allowed the government to (say) prohibit the exporting of certain military hardware (say, a nuclear bomb), but not prohibiting the export of an incredibly detailed document explaining every nuance, datum, etc of producing that same piece of military hardware, I'd argue that the constitution needed a brief update (perhaps as you mention to 'shall make not many laws'). To my knowledge, it does not. Then either this case will lead to failure, or success by arguing that any export regs on ideas are unconstitutional (thus leading to the bizarre problem above) or a success by proving that the export regs do not, or should not cover what he has produced.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      > Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison. Not for speech. Let's say that employee worked on those documents, and was presumed to have knowledge that would enable her to recreate similar plans. Now suppose they defect to China. They could lose their clearance and, I suppose, be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts. But what prior restraint can legally be placed on this person?
      - CHY872 11y ago
        So if Edward Snowden were to come back to the US, he'd be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts but no more? Seems suspect.
        themartorana 11y ago
        More than likely he'd be prosecuted for computer crimes, not violations of speech limitations.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Did you read about prior restraint in a textbook, too?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Like the weaspon of cryptography? This is being used for a standard gun. A very dangerous weapon would be something like a dirty bomb or nuke. But even then I disagree. Censorship is despicable and will be abused. Historically it has been far more abused than any other dangerous weapon and should thus be the first eliminated.
  - CHY872 11y ago
    So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery? This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder. It raised clear issues which were never settled conclusively. Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. The argument that is usually made is that of a slippery slope; we've been going down that slope for hundreds of years and still have no Ministry of Love or thoughtcrime.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery? The serial killer already has it. Allowing them to publish it is our best bet to catch them before they do anything else. Would you suggest limiting knowledge of chemistry as a classified need-to-know secret so that serial killers won't make nerve gas? >This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder. And I believe that such a rulling is, quite frankly, BS. Because even if it consolidates all the info, all the info on how to dispose of bodies already exists online. >Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. Hello. My name is Strange Person. How are you doing today?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
  In what country? In the United States, this is not a textbook definition. Those would be obscenity, "fighting words", and incitement.
zaroth 11y ago
> “I can’t think of anything quite analogous,” said Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer. “But on the face of it, it seems to me like a serious claim.” Really? Sounds almost exactly how in the 90s restrictions were placed on exporting cryptography, by placing strong software crypto on the US Munitions List. > Mr. Wilson, 27, claims he spent thousands of dollars over the next two years on lawyers who helped him file paperwork in an effort to comply with the regulations, which are known as ITAR. "International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML)." So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings?
- brohee 11y ago
  They should definitely have talked about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States and the PGP case. ITAR was the regulation used then too.
- gayprogrammer 11y ago
  > So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings? He's been disadvantaged by being held in legal limbo for two years.
- dmix 11y ago
  > So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings? Having read other articles about Cody he believes that all information should be free, global, and non-censored. Similar to the cypherpunk philosophy. His decision to use potentially dangerous information as an example of this idea had the intended side-effected of drawing out ideological opponents. Such as the media and regulators. As a result, the public is now forced to seriously question the limits of free flowing of information thanks to the internet/3d printing/decentralize file sharing/etc. As we know from media piracy, attempting to suppress information on the internet usually results in the opposite effect. Which is what happened to Cody's files, tons of people reposted it all over the internet immediately after the regulatory legal threat was issued. Anyone could check that box saying they're American or use a VPN. Then distribute the file via torrents. Which makes the whole regulatory process seem like a public spectacle rather than an effective deterrent. The crypto wars from the 1990s is certainly analogous.
trhway 11y ago
it seems to be well established practice in the US that ITAR takes precedence over the 1st in the well defined by ITAR cases - for example, due to ITAR, Elon Musk just can't exercise his 1st by publishing Merlin's blueprints. The same is here - if plastic handgun falls under ITAR - qua. If not - qua for the State Department. It seems that instead of the 1st Amendment lawyer, here ITAR specialist lawyer would be more useful. Of course, if it is a clear ITAR item, then the fight for the priority of the 1st Amendment is a noble, yet most probably destined to fail, endeavor.
chroma 11y ago
I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where the line should be drawn. With just a little creativity, it is very easy to build extremely dangerous weapons from off-the-shelf parts. I won't mention anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these weapons being used. I will mention one of my rejected ideas, as there is a straightforward countermeasure: laser blinding devices. Powerful infrared laser diodes are cheap, as are the optics and electronics to drive and focus them. Such lasers are invisible and cause permanent damage faster than one can blink. They have a range measured in kilometers, and they are small enough to be mounted on consumer drones. Combine this with face recognition/tracking, and you could permanently blind any target who dared to show themselves in public. Do you think someone who published the specifics (parts list, blueprints, source code, etc) of such a device should be punished? I do, even though I think there's an obvious countermeasure. Likewise, while Wilson's 3D-printed gun is a toy, not everything publishable is so benign. Before we hop on the train of free-speech idealism, we should realize how fortunate we are that nobody has discovered a convenient world-ending weapon. Considering the amount of energy pent-up in ordinary matter, we've been incredibly lucky. SILEX[1] came close, but thankfully its specifics have been kept secret. And had physics turned out slightly differently, building a nuclear weapon could have been as easy as putting sand in a microwave.[2] As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information. Until humanity becomes wiser, I think our only (terrible) option is to silence people who try to spread it. Again, this specific case clearly falls under free speech, but it's important to keep future discoveries in mind. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_lase... 2. This example was originally used by Nick Bostrom.
- pakitan 11y ago
  > As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up on the hierarchy ladder. And then there the issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to publish information anonymously?

76 points by jordanbaucke 11y ago

Just as some additional information, being prosecuted for publishing the blueprints to a very dangerous weapon is a textbook (as in, I read it in a textbook) example of where it is generally believed that your right to free speech does not provide a good defence. Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.

btilly 11y ago
Generally believed by whom? The classic case on this topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_I.... And nobody knows what the court would have ruled because once the blueprints for the hydrogen bomb were reprinted widely, the government decided that there was no point in continuing the case.
themartorana 11y ago
Certainly not generally believed by anyone (including lawyers) I know. There's not much to interpret in "...shall make no law..." The problem, as stated everywhere around this post, is who draws the line, considering the line is against the letter and spirit of the law. The whole reason the clause "...shall make no law..." is there is because any law is self-serving to a group of people wishing to control another group. While you may consider weapons speech to be over a line you have arbitrarily drawn in the sand, this guy over here believes hate speech is a more dangerous type of speech and would like to draw his own line. Pretty soon the government considers anti-government speech to be "hate speech" against the powers that be... "No" law. Not "not many" laws.
- rayiner 11y ago
  You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means. Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.
  - talmand 11y ago
    I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning. Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet. Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned. Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.
- CHY872 11y ago
  The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech. For example, the espionage act has been ruled constitutional. Military officers are prohibited from releasing classified information. You're in trouble if you call in a bomb threat. You segue onto hate speech and drawing lines; this seems irrelevant here. Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison. Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison. If it were the case that the constitution allowed the government to (say) prohibit the exporting of certain military hardware (say, a nuclear bomb), but not prohibiting the export of an incredibly detailed document explaining every nuance, datum, etc of producing that same piece of military hardware, I'd argue that the constitution needed a brief update (perhaps as you mention to 'shall make not many laws'). To my knowledge, it does not. Then either this case will lead to failure, or success by arguing that any export regs on ideas are unconstitutional (thus leading to the bizarre problem above) or a success by proving that the export regs do not, or should not cover what he has produced.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    > Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison. Not for speech. Let's say that employee worked on those documents, and was presumed to have knowledge that would enable her to recreate similar plans. Now suppose they defect to China. They could lose their clearance and, I suppose, be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts. But what prior restraint can legally be placed on this person?
    - CHY872 11y ago
      So if Edward Snowden were to come back to the US, he'd be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts but no more? Seems suspect.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        More than likely he'd be prosecuted for computer crimes, not violations of speech limitations.
Zigurd 11y ago
Did you read about prior restraint in a textbook, too?
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Like the weaspon of cryptography? This is being used for a standard gun. A very dangerous weapon would be something like a dirty bomb or nuke. But even then I disagree. Censorship is despicable and will be abused. Historically it has been far more abused than any other dangerous weapon and should thus be the first eliminated.
- CHY872 11y ago
  So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery? This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder. It raised clear issues which were never settled conclusively. Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. The argument that is usually made is that of a slippery slope; we've been going down that slope for hundreds of years and still have no Ministry of Love or thoughtcrime.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery? The serial killer already has it. Allowing them to publish it is our best bet to catch them before they do anything else. Would you suggest limiting knowledge of chemistry as a classified need-to-know secret so that serial killers won't make nerve gas? >This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder. And I believe that such a rulling is, quite frankly, BS. Because even if it consolidates all the info, all the info on how to dispose of bodies already exists online. >Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. Hello. My name is Strange Person. How are you doing today?
NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
In what country? In the United States, this is not a textbook definition. Those would be obscenity, "fighting words", and incitement.

zaroth 11y ago

> “I can’t think of anything quite analogous,” said Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer. “But on the face of it, it seems to me like a serious claim.” Really? Sounds almost exactly how in the 90s restrictions were placed on exporting cryptography, by placing strong software crypto on the US Munitions List. > Mr. Wilson, 27, claims he spent thousands of dollars over the next two years on lawyers who helped him file paperwork in an effort to comply with the regulations, which are known as ITAR. "International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML)." So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings?

brohee 11y ago
They should definitely have talked about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States and the PGP case. ITAR was the regulation used then too.
gayprogrammer 11y ago
> So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings? He's been disadvantaged by being held in legal limbo for two years.
dmix 11y ago
> So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings? Having read other articles about Cody he believes that all information should be free, global, and non-censored. Similar to the cypherpunk philosophy. His decision to use potentially dangerous information as an example of this idea had the intended side-effected of drawing out ideological opponents. Such as the media and regulators. As a result, the public is now forced to seriously question the limits of free flowing of information thanks to the internet/3d printing/decentralize file sharing/etc. As we know from media piracy, attempting to suppress information on the internet usually results in the opposite effect. Which is what happened to Cody's files, tons of people reposted it all over the internet immediately after the regulatory legal threat was issued. Anyone could check that box saying they're American or use a VPN. Then distribute the file via torrents. Which makes the whole regulatory process seem like a public spectacle rather than an effective deterrent. The crypto wars from the 1990s is certainly analogous.

trhway 11y ago

it seems to be well established practice in the US that ITAR takes precedence over the 1st in the well defined by ITAR cases - for example, due to ITAR, Elon Musk just can't exercise his 1st by publishing Merlin's blueprints. The same is here - if plastic handgun falls under ITAR - qua. If not - qua for the State Department. It seems that instead of the 1st Amendment lawyer, here ITAR specialist lawyer would be more useful. Of course, if it is a clear ITAR item, then the fight for the priority of the 1st Amendment is a noble, yet most probably destined to fail, endeavor.

chroma 11y ago

I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where the line should be drawn. With just a little creativity, it is very easy to build extremely dangerous weapons from off-the-shelf parts. I won't mention anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these weapons being used. I will mention one of my rejected ideas, as there is a straightforward countermeasure: laser blinding devices. Powerful infrared laser diodes are cheap, as are the optics and electronics to drive and focus them. Such lasers are invisible and cause permanent damage faster than one can blink. They have a range measured in kilometers, and they are small enough to be mounted on consumer drones. Combine this with face recognition/tracking, and you could permanently blind any target who dared to show themselves in public. Do you think someone who published the specifics (parts list, blueprints, source code, etc) of such a device should be punished? I do, even though I think there's an obvious countermeasure. Likewise, while Wilson's 3D-printed gun is a toy, not everything publishable is so benign. Before we hop on the train of free-speech idealism, we should realize how fortunate we are that nobody has discovered a convenient world-ending weapon. Considering the amount of energy pent-up in ordinary matter, we've been incredibly lucky. SILEX[1] came close, but thankfully its specifics have been kept secret. And had physics turned out slightly differently, building a nuclear weapon could have been as easy as putting sand in a microwave.[2] As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information. Until humanity becomes wiser, I think our only (terrible) option is to silence people who try to spread it. Again, this specific case clearly falls under free speech, but it's important to keep future discoveries in mind. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_lase... 2. This example was originally used by Nick Bostrom.

pakitan 11y ago
> As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up on the hierarchy ladder. And then there the issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to publish information anonymously?