> How did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?

This goes back to what Phil Zimmerman said about ITAR and such almost 20 years ago when they threw it at him for PGP:

"The Government has made it illegal in many cases to export good cryptographic technology, and that may include PGP. This is determined by volatile State Department policies, not fixed laws."

This has nothing to do with law and everything to do with those same volatile policies a generation later.

ITAR, like all US federal regulations codified in the CFR, have the full force and effect of the law. See the first couple paragraphs here for further explanation: http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw

How do you know if something is subject to ITAR? The State Department has a big list. It's called the US Munitions List (USML). At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list. But I assure you, blueprints of guns are absolutely on the list.

What's really funny is that 2d blueprints of the m16 and others exist and are readily accessible. Also, the army has published in the past various handbooks for insurrection. The "improvised munitions handbook" comes to mind.

> At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list.

It wasn't on the list yet, proving his point about volatility.

> full force and effect of the law.

All decrees, from Hammurabi onward, have the same qualities.

The law's main reason for existing isn't really about handguns, but that doesn't stop it for being applied to them. I don't think the U.S. government is really all that concerned about a single shot pistol, but someone got all in a tizzy about it and decided that it should be shut down before it becomes a problem (not that I agree with that thinking).

These export controls primarily exist to keep our advanced military technology out of enemy hands. I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably certain that these laws would be upheld by the courts. Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.

> Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.

The "clear and present danger" thing has not been true for many decades now. The current standard is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawless behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Of course the case where the "fire in a movie theater" thing first came up was about a war protester telling people that the draft was unconstitutional...

Thanks for filling me in, jlgreco. However, I still don't think any part of ITAR or AECA is going down because of this.

My knowledge is quite basic on the subject, but how would this be a first amendment issue?

Nobody doubts the shutdown is to prevent citizens from seeing the files, not foreigners. Ergo, censorship.

It's censorship either way.

In most contexts we interpret "speech" quite broadly. Speech is the transmission of information. Blueprints consist of information structured in a particular meticulous way which can be beautiful as well as practical and informative. Novels and paintings also fit that description. A painting could show how a bomb is constructed. A novel could explain how to commit a crime.

So I'm surprised public-domain blueprints aren't already considered "speech" as a matter of settled law. In the case of commercial blueprints I suppose I could imagine an argument for considering them "proprietary information", but in this case where the producer wants the information to get out and is not claiming copyright over it...posting a blueprint on the web is like posting a flyer on a telephone pole. It's a speech act. The federal government isn't generally allowed to prohibit speech acts.

How is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech? AYFKM

don't beg the question.

there's no need for cursing.

That is not what "beg the question" means. Begging the question refers to a form of argument in which the final conclusion was earlier presented as a given. That is, a circular argument.

I restated the question, to highlight the absurdity of it. That is not begging the question.

restating the thread:

steve19: 'legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license'

glenra: 'how did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?'

nness: 'how would this be a first amendment issue?'

in nness's comment, i am assuming 'this' is 'exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license'

in other words: 'how would exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license be a first amendment issue?'

you restated this as: 'how is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech?' first amendment issue very easily transforms to freedom of speech, but 'exporting blueprints about weapons' does not easily transform to 'censorship of speech'

nness question is essentially 'how does exporting weapon blueprints relate to freedom of speech?' it is not an absurd question.

you responded by equating 'exporting weapon blueprints' with 'censoring speech' with no argument, presupposing the conclusion from the question. ergo, begging the question.