[Noisebridge-discuss] California Lawmaker Wants 3-D Printers To Be Regulated

[macegr]

Free speech isn't free; you need to pay lawyers for enough of it to breathe easily.



On May 12, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Felipe Sanches <juca at members.fsf.org> wrote:

> I'd say that taking down OpenSCAD source code files from a server is kinda censorship... how's that compatible with the supposed freedom of speech values in the US ? :-P
> 
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Eric W. Rasmussen <ewr at majortek.com> wrote:
> All I asked for was that the rhetoric be toned down. What he described was an impact/dragging death. It's a bit extreme. If it was said verbally, I might have let it go. But it was said in an archived and monitored discussion.
> 
> I also notice that he hasn't responded. Maybe he agrees. Everyone is allowed to declare their displeasure for any politician. However, wishing a gruesome death is, in my opinion, barbaric.
> 
> There are limits to speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
> 
> As far as the registration of 3D printers, it's simply overblown rhetoric coming from another loud mouthed politician. It's difficult to take him seriously due to the impossibility.
> 
> Maybe they need to tone it down, too.
> 
> No one is afraid of 3D printed zip guns. It's POC at best.
> 
> 
> 
> On 12.05.2013 12:41, LinkReincarnate wrote:
>> That is a straw man.  None of what he said was homophobic or racist.  Even if it was I would defend his right to say it.  In america the only limit we have on free speech is when you use it to directly cause bodily harm to others (yelling fire in a crowded theater)  Everything else must be protected (including speech you find abhorrent like racism, homophobia, or sexism) lest other speech be eroded away.  The proper response is not to try to censor people who don't agree with you, it is to use your own free speech to counter theirs.  Free speech is it's own check and balance.  That only works if everyone has it regardless of their opinions or the popularity of their opinions. Any  outside interference with that throws the balance off and allows one side of an idea to prevail in said imbalance.  In the case of women's rights, racism, and homophobia outlawing that type of speech may seem like a good idea but you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in doing so. You would be getting an incremental step in rights at the cost of the future of growth of those same rights. The meaning of any particular piece of speech (even entirely in context) is a highly subjective matter.  I believe that our law system tries to be as objective as possible (or at least it was originally designed with that intent)  Where do you draw the line for what constitutes this type of speech? Who defines it? What will be the penalty? What do you do to repeat offenders? Who pays for this program? What about weird edge cases?  Finally how will it be abused/gamed/corrupted? That's not even getting into the problems that plague the justice system right now. Or the problems the plague human interaction and understanding in general. We live in the real world.  The truth is that violence is sometimes necessary.  We hope to avoid it as much as possible but pretending that we can all bury our heads in the sand RE:violence is just naivety.  Outlawing violent speech is not going to stop violence.  It could mean one has less warning though.
>> 
>> On May 12, 2013 12:05 PM, "Johny Radio" <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun May 12 18:41:12 UTC 2013, LinkReincarnate linkreincarnate at gmail.com wrote:
>> If you believe in free speech at all you have to protect even speech that offends you. That includes violent speech. 
>> Link, i agree with you, in a general sense. However, would the NB community tolerate words of violence toward women, homosexuals, transgender people, the poor, or people of color? If not, then the community agrees that certain kinds of speech are not ok. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Johny Radio
>> Stick It In Your Ear!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130512/87fc59f1/attachment-0003.html>