Are CAD files openly shared with the public 'free speech'?

[Into the Night]

Where SmarterthanYou is trying to go with this is the government is trying to restrict the sharing of designs to 3d print illegal gun parts.

https://futurism.com/federal-judge-illegal-upload-3d-printed-gun-designs


What SmarterthanYou doesn't realize is he is supporting a pedophile.

SmarterthanYou does not support Biden.

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to restrict sharing designs to 3d print gun parts. It is unconstitutional to declare ANY gun part 'illegal'.

 

[Into the Night]

All freedoms (rights) come with restrictions.

Rights are not 'freedoms'. Rights are rights. It is not possible for any government to take away any inherent right.

You can't fire a gun whenever you want in any direction you want.

You can. You are responsible for the outcome.

You can't vote multiple times in an election.

Democrats do (illegally of course).

You can't use speech to incite a riot.

Speeches do not cause riots. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to pass any law restricting speech. Any speech.

Property rights don't allow you to own humans.

Humans are not property. Owning humans is not a right.

You are free to be as stupid as you want and you seem to be exercising that right quite well.,

You are talking about yourself again.

 

[Into the Night]

Can’t say how many times this has been explained to you, no right is absolute, never has been, never will be, they are all regulated because rights are based on reason, not desire

All inherent rights are absolute.

 

[Into the Night]

my support for a printed CAD file does not equate support for pedophilia. only stupid people use hyperbole to try and win an argument. and 'shall not be infringed' does not mean 'reasonable restrictions'.

'Shall not be infringed' means NO RESTRICTIONS.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no right or freedom to publish cad files on the internet.

There certainly is. No government can stop it.

You have just admitted that free speech has limits when you agree that there is no right to use speech to incite a riot.

Speeches do not cause riots.
It is unconstitutional for the Congress or the federal government to ban or limit any speech.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course rights are regulated. They have to be because my rights often conflict with the rights of others.
The emancipation proclamation took away property rights from southern slave holders.

We have entered into a social compact that says we give up some of our rights so government can help to keep a civil society. The government is able to oversee some conflicts rather than leaving the resolution to the individuals. Without that we would have anarchy and no property rights.
You should read some John Locke and Adam Smith. It might open your eyes.

Rights do not conflict with rights.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

If I invented a simple device that one could attach to a vehicle that gave it the ability to triple gas mileage AND reduce carbon output and freely distributed the file to manufacture this device on a 3D printer, would you classify that as 'freedom of speech'???????

YES Macguyver, the Constitution says you do!

So, now we are waiting for your invention to become a reality! When does it go into production?

Do I need to invest in it's development to get the ball rolling?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is no right or freedom to publish cad files on the internet.
You have just admitted that free speech has limits when you agree that there is no right to use speech to incite a riot.

so you're saying that if I had my own server, own internet connection, I still have no right to publish information I created? that would be YOU wanting limits to free speech, not me. Once again, the freedom haters equate promotion of harm to others as some sort of right when it just isn't.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course rights are regulated. They have to be because my rights often conflict with the rights of others.
The emancipation proclamation took away property rights from southern slave holders.

We have entered into a social compact that says we give up some of our rights so government can help to keep a civil society. The government is able to oversee some conflicts rather than leaving the resolution to the individuals. Without that we would have anarchy and no property rights.
You should read some John Locke and Adam Smith. It might open your eyes.

there is no social contract.......if so, where is it?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

so you're saying that if I had my own server, own internet connection, I still have no right to publish information I created? that would be YOU wanting limits to free speech, not me. Once again, the freedom haters equate promotion of harm to others as some sort of right when it just isn't.

Are you arguing that if you have your own server you can publish all the child porn you want? Are you arguing that you can publish all the naked pictures of your ex wife that you took?

You can only publish what isn't prohibited by law whether it is CAD files or photos.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

there is no social contract.......if so, where is it?

Did you sign a contract to be so stupid? If so, where is it?

You should read some John Locke and Adam Smith. It might open your eyes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Are you arguing that if you have your own server you can publish all the child porn you want? Are you arguing that you can publish all the naked pictures of your ex wife that you took?

You can only publish what isn't prohibited by law whether it is CAD files or photos.

resorting to hyperbolic arguments means you've lost the debate. I accept your concession

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Did you sign a contract to be so stupid? If so, where is it?

You should read some John Locke and Adam Smith. It might open your eyes.

so you have no social contract to show me. I accept your concession of defeat

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

resorting to hyperbolic arguments means you've lost the debate. I accept your concession

LOL.
So where is this device you have created?

I guess you lost before we even started since you have a fictional device that doesn't exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

so you have no social contract to show me. I accept your concession of defeat

Your refusal to look doesn't mean you won. It only means you are keeping your eyes closed.

You should read some John Locke and Adam Smith. It might open your eyes.