Slashdot Mirror
Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship
SonicSpike writes with word that Cody Wilson, whose projects to create (and disseminate the plans for) printable guns have fascinated some and horrified others, is not going to quietly comply with the U.S. State Deparment's demand that he remove such plans from the internet. Wilson, says Wired, is
picking a fight that could pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other in an age when the line between a lethal weapon and a collection of bits is blurrier than ever before. Wilson's gun manufacturing advocacy group Defense Distributed, along with the gun rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the State Department and several of its officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry. In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn't publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.
Still amazes me that bureaucrats think things can be "removed from the internet". Good for DD.
A person has rights to privacy, disclosing said person's personal information, particularly with regard to a controversial topic is at the very least negligent and at worst directly contributing to any potential harm that may befall them.
There is quite a bit difference from public access to 3D printer files and public access to personal information of a specific person.
It doesn't matter if you think this is a good idea or a bad idea since as a society we have no choice but to accept it and figure out how to best integrate it into our society. 3D printers exist now and they will continue to get better. They can print things like weapons just as they can engines, food or any number of other things. What can be printed is going to continue to advance fairly rapidly. In the end how to 3D print something is just a file and there is no way to control files.
The music industry has tried to stop music sharing and the movie industry has tried to stop moving sharing and we all now how effective that way.
We can choose to bury our heads in the sand and not see that our technology has advanced to the point where it has destabilized certain aspects of our society or we can try to figure out a new stability point.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
But I can't distill alcohol without a license. I can't even own a still without such a license (California, but other states are the same). I can brew 200 gallons of beer and wine a year, but I can't make a pint of vodka.
But I can freely purchase plans to make my own still, I can order plumbing supplies to put it together. But the moment I have one that is ready to use, I've broken the law. And it will be confiscated and I will be subject to serious fines. (and incarceration in some jurisdictions, although usually not for a first offense)
Hopefully this parallel helps inform people that government regulation can take many forms. And that if one aspect is too difficult or is illegal to regulate, there are other ways to control a problem and enforce the law.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Encryption was defined as a weapon until '97. There were a number of interesting end runs around that, including a book with all of the PGP source code in it. Since you could print the definition for a 3D gun, banning 3D files for guns should run into the same legal restrictions that banning the publishing of encryption software did.
It's a principled stand that the government shouldn't censor speech (a la 1984). You can have this opinion completely orthogonally to whether or not you believe in full disclosure of everything. You can even hold this opinion and believe in boycotting those whose speech you disagree with.
In this case, the Supreme Court has upheld (see Heller ) the rights of citizens to own and keep small firearms (which, other than the material used to manufacture them are materially similar to Liberator) under the second amendment. We also have the right to speak without government censorship (barring certain exceptions, none of which seem particularly pertinent here). These two rights together seem to imply the right to speak freely about firearms, such as how to use, store, maintain, and manufacture them.
However, such information about firearms is caught under a broad interpretation of ITAR (specifically 22 CFR 121.1). The last time we really discussed this was the crypto wars in the '90s (see Bernstein ), where free speech won. On the other hand, I would expect the Supreme Court to prohibit publishing an easy how-to guide for making effective nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I think we're closer to the former than the latter in this particular case.
Equivalent? No.
But the question (for which I don't pose an answer) is "do we accept there are valid limitations on free speech, and if so what defines that?"
Some entities are awfully quick to cite freedom of speech, and then just as quick to deny it from others.
So that "principled" stance is often self-serving bullshit.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
All that is needed is to pass a law requiring 3D printers to only allow signed documents to be printed, with multiple private places acting as clearinghouses that vet items (they are not infringing, not a gun part, etc.) Existing 3D printers can be easily banned with ownership of one becoming a felony, just like how magazines over x amount of rounds are illegal to possess now in NJ, California, and other states.
Like I said, they'll try to control them like the Soviets tried to control typewriters. And that will just result in an economic collapse, as the free countries where anyone can make whatever they want become far more wealthy than the totalitarian Luddites.
So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?
How is that in any way equivalent to DD trying publish its own data?
It's not. The only reason gstoddart is asking is because it's a gun group, and he's anti-gun, and can't imagine that someone who is pro-2nd amendment rights could also be pro-1st amendment. The right to self-defense is as much of a civil liberty as the right to free speech, I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children ...
Just because someone has a right to say something, doesn't mean you have to "support" what they say. Publishing names, addresses, and names of children is legal, as long as it is not done as part of a credible threat. Disclosing someone's SSN may or may not be illegal depending on what jurisdiction you are in, and what the judge had for breakfast.
Personally, I think disclosure of SSNs should not only be legal, but should be encouraged. Then we can get rid of the idiotic notion that "knowing" an SSN is somehow evidence that you are the person it belongs to.
Our commitment to gun ownership is WHY we're Americans (and not British subjects, or even Canadians) in the first place.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think he did. He clearly came to the conclusion that education and libraries are the cause of most political dissent in the world. Once people are liberated from the concept that a human could have rights, the police and military have a much easier job.
Really? Where exactly is hate speech illegal in the US today? The First Amendment would seem to preclude such a thing from being enforced much, as like it or not plenty of protected hate-speech exists today... just ask anyone who has heard members of the Westboro Baptist Church speak or protest.
And no... I'm not talking about "incitement" or "fighting words", they have their own carve outs and for very explicit reasons.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The Anarchist's Cookbook is all over the internet, and home-made bombs have killed many, many times more people than a plastic gun ever will. Despite decades of attempted censorship, it's still available. This is just one more exercise in futility, "for the children."
It really doesn't matter what the federalist papers propose or the founders discussed because the weapons the government allows you to own are no threat whatsoever to them. Modern heavy weaponry is not allowed to be owned and without it no citizenry could stand up against a government willing to use said heavy weaponry against their citizens. The 2nd amendment defense against government aggression died when the federal government was allowed to classify weapons and restrict access to the heaviest of those weapons.
I'm a big supporter of 2nd amendment rights but you are fooling yourself if you think your handgun and semi-automatic rifles are a deterrent to government aggression. The only thing that protects Americans from government aggression in the 21st century is our armed forces being unwilling to take action against the citizenry. That's it, if the military as a whole decided to side with an autocratic regime that seized power in the US there would be no civilian resistance because anyone that tried would be dead. Small arms are not an effective weapon against armored heavy weaponry. This is just a fact.
There should be no need to defend the 2nd amendment using this silly defense against government. The 2nd amendment exists and it's not going to go away no matter how much the anti-gun lobby wants it to.