The First Amendment covers more than literal speech: source code and technical data is a form of expression just as much as a poem or song, and are equally protected.
There is no principled endpoint to this – if you followed this sort of reasoning, then everything would be protected under free speech, including all physical objects. That being said, I am not optimistic for the government’s prospects in this case. At least two appeals courts, the 9th circuit (Bernstein v. US), and the 6th circuit (Junger v. Daley) have already explicitly held that source code is free speech. It is only a matter of time before CAD files (imo, incorrectly) will be interpreted as closer to source code than physical objects.
if you followed this sort of reasoning, then everything would be protected under free speech, including all physical objects
Source code, technical data, poems, and songs are all intangible; you could conceivably speak the information aloud. Where is the slippery slope to physical objects?
then, I think, you are logically forced into accepting that it will be impossible to regulate any 3D printed objects, since it is (both legally and practically) infeasible to restrict what people do on their own 3D printers in their own homes.
…you are logically forced into accepting that it will be impossible to regulate any 3D printed objects, since it is (both legally and practically) infeasible to restrict what people do on their own 3D printers in their own homes.
It’s not legally impossible to restrict use of 3D printers anymore than it is to restrict use of CNC machines. “Shop guns” are a thing and if unregistered are manifestly illegal in California.
Oh, I see what you mean. That doesn’t lead to “everything” being protected by free speech; 3D printed objects are a subset of all physical objects. You can’t 3D-print uranium, for instance.
It would be impossible to regulate plastic shapes… but so what?
Some of the comments indicate confusion with the laws involved. Like:
You cannot put nuclear bomb plans on the Internet, that’s illegal and on the ‘black’ end of the scale. Webcomics and news sites tend to stay white, in the free-speech, fully-legal territory.
Putting those kinds of plans on the internet isn’t “not free speech” – it’s a violation of (doubtless numerous) laws governing classified information. There aren’t laws against sharing “bad information” but there are definitely laws against sharing things the government has generated itself and maintained in a classified way.
There’s nothing secret about plans for simple weapons, though. The plans and process of assembly for many ubiquitous service weapons – Glocks and AR-15s and all the rest – are known throughout the world.
On the one hand, precision manufacturing gets easier and cheaper every year. On the other, there is a practical need to limit dangerous use of this technology. It seems like some people are banking on ignorance as a solution.
There is no principled endpoint to this – if you followed this sort of reasoning, then everything would be protected under free speech, including all physical objects. That being said, I am not optimistic for the government’s prospects in this case. At least two appeals courts, the 9th circuit (Bernstein v. US), and the 6th circuit (Junger v. Daley) have already explicitly held that source code is free speech. It is only a matter of time before CAD files (imo, incorrectly) will be interpreted as closer to source code than physical objects.
Source code, technical data, poems, and songs are all intangible; you could conceivably speak the information aloud. Where is the slippery slope to physical objects?
If you agree with the following three statements:
then, I think, you are logically forced into accepting that it will be impossible to regulate any 3D printed objects, since it is (both legally and practically) infeasible to restrict what people do on their own 3D printers in their own homes.
It’s not legally impossible to restrict use of 3D printers anymore than it is to restrict use of CNC machines. “Shop guns” are a thing and if unregistered are manifestly illegal in California.
I don’t think that logically follows, free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want.
Absent imminent lawless action, I think it does. What do you think it means?
Imminent lawless action is one of a few categories of unprotected speech. Others include libel and false advertising.
This is in the context of safety/secuity-based restrictions on free speech (i.e. guns). Should have made that clearer.
Oh, I see what you mean. That doesn’t lead to “everything” being protected by free speech; 3D printed objects are a subset of all physical objects. You can’t 3D-print uranium, for instance.
It would be impossible to regulate plastic shapes… but so what?
This is exactly the sort of situation that status code 451 is for.
Some of the comments indicate confusion with the laws involved. Like:
Putting those kinds of plans on the internet isn’t “not free speech” – it’s a violation of (doubtless numerous) laws governing classified information. There aren’t laws against sharing “bad information” but there are definitely laws against sharing things the government has generated itself and maintained in a classified way.
There’s nothing secret about plans for simple weapons, though. The plans and process of assembly for many ubiquitous service weapons – Glocks and AR-15s and all the rest – are known throughout the world.
On the one hand, precision manufacturing gets easier and cheaper every year. On the other, there is a practical need to limit dangerous use of this technology. It seems like some people are banking on ignorance as a solution.