Re: Censorship protest relevance (was: Re: Continuation of my previous mail)

[DJ Delorie]

shulie  writes:
> That is MOSTLY, but not completely true.  The Phone company, for
> example, can not disconnect you because your a communist.

That's an example of the contract thing I mentioned.  They entered into
a contract where, in exchange for a temporary monopoly, they agreed to
operate under certain rules.  Most scarce resources (roads, radio
spectrum, etc) are managed this way here.

You can certainly make your own private phone company and kick out
whoever you want, but don't expect the same benefits that big phone
company gets.

The interesting question is: what will happen when the government starts
*forcing* companies to follow these rules, without compensation?  That's
where the censorship argument comes into play, and possibly the Fifth
Amendment (government can't just "take" without compensation).

Re: Censorship protest relevance (was: Re: Continuation of my previous mail)

[shulie]

On 5/13/21 1:56 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>  There
> is no such thing as a "free speech right" in the USA *outside of* the
> laws themselves.



That is MOSTLY, but not completely true.  The Phone company, for
example, can not disconnect you because your a communist.

Re: Censorship protest relevance (was: Re: Continuation of my previous mail)

[DJ Delorie]

Jacob Bachmeyer  writes:
> Since GNU is based in USA, is this particular protest obsolete, as any 
> such censorship applied to us would be clearly unconstitutional,

For those outside the USA (and probably many inside too ;) ...

The USA laws don't work that way; the first amendment *only* prevents
the government from censoring the non-government, it has no power over
private people or organizations from censoring their own speech.  There
is no such thing as a "free speech right" in the USA *outside of* the
laws themselves.

  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
  or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the "Congress shall make no law" part.  That's all there is.
Nothing else is covered, nothing else is prevented, nothing else is
guaranteed.

So no, censorship in the USA is NOT unconstitutional.  Only laws that
cause censorship are.

(as an amusing twist, laws that try to *prevent* private censorship
could be considered unconstitutional, since that's also government
trying to control speech)

HOWEVER...

USA law doesn't stop private individuals or organizations from entering
into contracts that limit speech, and providing for damages etc if
violated, as long as the contract is fair and valid.  The government can
thus offer a contract whereby a clinic (for example) receives funds in
exchange for an agreement to limit speech.  This is not considered
censorship since the clinic may choose to not enter in to the contract
and thus not be limited.  Voluntary is OK, involuntary is not.  This is
no different than, for example, an NDA you must sign in exchange for
employment.

That such clinics may in fact go out of business without government
funding, while relevent in reality, is irrelevent in this context.


[and I couldn't tell if you were referring to the manual, or the federal
program referred to therein, so I tried to cover both, as neither is
legally considered "censorship"]

Re: Censorship protest relevance (was: Re: Continuation of my previous mail)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Il 13/05/21 04:32, Jacob Bachmeyer ha scritto:
Since GNU is based in USA, is this particular protest obsolete, as any 
such censorship applied to us would be clearly unconstitutional, or are 
there still possible risks here?


In short, is this protest still accurate or can we now confidently say 
that that change will never happen?


It sounds extremely unlikely that the issue has been resolved or 
reduced. Relevant First Amendment doctrine is a continuously evolving 
target.



Federico

Censorship protest relevance (was: Re: Continuation of my previous mail)

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Jean Louis wrote:

-@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
-@cartouche
-@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
-may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
-calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
-acceptable way of terminating a program.
-@end cartouche

There was some "Federal censorship regulation" that would prohibit the
free speech, and the pun is within the programs function is abort() on
Federal censorship regulation.
  


That was a controversy far enough back to be known to me more as recent 
history than as direct experience, but I understand that we have made 
significant progress since then towards program source code being 
recognized as protected free speech under the US Constitution and that 
much of our cryptographic source code is now distributed on that basis.  
Since GNU is based in USA, is this particular protest obsolete, as any 
such censorship applied to us would be clearly unconstitutional, or are 
there still possible risks here?


In short, is this protest still accurate or can we now confidently say 
that that change will never happen?  Do we still keep it anyway just to 
highlight the absurdity?


[CC'ing RMS here in case this has fallen through the cracks and we 
really have already won on this issue -- I do not know but I expect that 
he does]



-- Jacob