SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
THIS WEEK MARKS the two-year anniversary since Cody Wilson, the inventor of the world’s first 3-D printable gun, received a letter from the State Department demanding that he remove the blueprints for his plastic-printed firearm from the internet. The alternative: face possible prosecution for violating regulations that forbid the international export of unapproved arms.
Now Wilson is challenging that letter. And in doing so, he’s 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.
In its 2013 letter to Defense Distributed, the DDTC cited a long-controversial set of regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which controls whether and how Americans can sell weapons beyond U.S. borders. By merely posting a 3-D-printable file to a website, in other words, the DDTC claimed Defense Distributed had potentially violated arms export controls—just as if it had shipped a crate of AR-15s to, say, Mexico. But the group’s lawsuit now argues that whether or not the Liberator is a weapon, its blueprints are “speech,” and that Americans’ freedom of speech is protected online—even when that speech can be used to make a gun with just a few clicks.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/
Here’s the full complaint from Defense Distributed: https://www.scribd.com/doc/264435890/Defense-Distributed-et-al-v-U-S-Dept-of-State
(Score: 3, Interesting) by CRCulver on Friday May 08 2015, @02:06PM
The point of this prosecution may not be keeping those files in the US as much as harrassing Defense Distributed, viewed as a potential source of social instability.
I know it was popular among the cypherpunks and turn-of-the-millennium Slashbots to claim the internet would change everything with regard to the relationship between governments and people, but that hasn't come to pass, and I don't think it is going to happen anytime soon. Sure, the internet allows some small groups of people to share contraband, but that is limited mainly to those being ultra-paranoid and savvy about online privacy, and it doesn't scale to a society-wide level.
The vast majority of the public is not interested in protecting their anonymity due to the immense inconvenience this brings. The state can take advantage of this lack of anonymity, make a few high-profile prosecutions, and society is going to accept that certain things shouldn't be done even if the internet might make them possible.
One can fileshare films, music, and ebooks with relative impunity, as in spite of the potential economic hit to the US, the state has tacitly accepted that that's out of the bag. However, Defense Distributed engages in pretty heavy rhetoric against the American status quo, much like the militia movement in the 1990s, so it's no surprise the US government would do something to discourage that kind of activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2015, @03:32PM
as in spite of the potential economic hit to the US
There's a huge difference between not gaining something and losing something.
(Score: 3, Touché) by CRCulver on Friday May 08 2015, @04:28PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Friday May 08 2015, @04:30PM
Yeah, I know all of that, and the only thing I was addressing was this:
My point is they are going about 'discouraging' in an ineffective manner and mindset.
BTW, I'm neither a 'cyberpunk' or 'turn-of-the-millennium Slashbot'. I'm old enough to have seen several major cultural and societal changes happen in this country.
The Internet has changed not only our country, but most of the world like no other single thing since the atom bomb. I see it(changes) all around me today, read/hear about in the news, and experience it dealing with others.
No matter how they harrass Defense Distributed, the cat is still out of the bag.
Maybe this will help:
When I was in the US Army, going through 'leadership 101'(forget the actual name-it has been a LONG time ago), one of the first things they hammered into our skulls, and again repeatedly to the end of the training:
Never give an order you KNOW will not be obeyed. It WILL undermine your autority and respect-DO NOT DO THAT unless you want
'fragged' by your own troops.
I see this as the State Dept. doing that exact thing.
The US gov't. is going to end up looking like the proverbial 'little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike' on this issue.(as they seem fond of doing in many areas)
The plans, schematics, measurements, all the 'spec's' needed, all of that AND thousands of youtube videos, already exist on how to make many fully functional(and far more durableand reliable than 'printed guns') full auto/select-fire weapons.
I watched a video that included 'function and fire' tests of 'how to make an AK-47 out of a shovel with hand tools' just for hoots and giggles. I was actually well done, and turned out a decent AK-47 replica to my surprise.
I have watched a guy build a Sten gun, test it, then fired it myself back in the mid 1990's.(it was picky about which magazines worked reliably, but otherwise, worked great)
He was using plans that he downloaded from somewhere on the 'net, and built it in his garage. The only tools he used that was not 'hand tools' was a drill press and a welder.