zlacker

I know this legislation is in the EU, but in the US such a regulation seems to run up against the concept of free speech. What is the difference between these hypotheticals:

Case 1: I have a blog that takes a conspiracy-level, anti-tax position. In it, I say crazy things like, “The IRS is illegitimate and financial records are unnecessary.” From reading this, someone shreds all their financial documents. As far as I can tell, the blog is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.

Case 2: I am an open source maintainer of a home assistant program. It includes personal file management. Due to a bug in the software, an end-user’s financial documents are deleted.

The easiest distinction is that the conspiracy reader is taking an affirmative act of destroying their own documents. But, I think that’s less different than at first glance. The software user is setting up a computer system based on an open source program that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data. The conspiracy reader is setting up a worldview based on information that may have bugs in it, and that causes a loss of data.

Why would the software bug be regulated, but the conspiracy falsehood not?

>>elicks+(OP)
It's probably closer to releasing "open source blueprints" for a car (a steam engine is probably better) that explodes and kills it's occupants. Who is responsible for that? A better set of questions might be:

- Why does this person think they can release open source blueprints if they aren't qualified for what they design?

- Or, if a company used these blueprints to build a car, why didn't they do their due diligence?

>>elicks+(OP)
Interestingly, something similar to your case 1 has actually happened and the text was banned with the justification that it contained fraudulent information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff#Case_regarding_...

>>elicks+(OP)
Because the software isn't regulated but commercial activity is, which I would imagine is also done in the US.

You are still free to write and release any software you want, but as soon as you sell that software you are liable for damages.

See:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/press-room/20231205IP...

>>elicks+(OP)
It's something of a digression, but your understanding of Free Speech is incomplete.

>> As far as I can tell, the blog is perfectly legal under the First Amendment.

The blog is legal, but things can be legal and still have consequences.

Let's say you work at the office, and forget to lock up one night. Someone walks in and takes a laptop. -you- haven't committed a crime, but you'll likely lose your job.

Free Speech prevents the govt from locking you up based on what you say. (Unless what you say is a crime, like say inciting a riot.)

It does not provide you with the right to say whatever you like on a private (non govt) platform, nor does it absolve you from legal liability (consequences) of what you say.

The obvious example is "conspiracy to commit xxx" - sure all you did was -talk-, but Free Speech doesn't give you a pass for that.