Dangerous items vs. Dangerous Censorship

Relating to locking the "can I build a weapon with a RepRap", I'm not sure that locking a thread to prevent discussion is necessarily the best action.

Although philisophical arguments can be made that RepRaps should only be used for happy good things, historically, I believe much good has come from military and 'dangerous use' research.

Of course, since your the driver, you can make a right turn from the left lane if you like. Don't be upset if all your passengers get out and move to a new car, if you get my meaning (Spelling it out if the analogy doesn't make sense -- if people think the boards use censorship enough, they may just create their own board and you lose the traffic and input from the people who leave -- Not sure the specific topic locked has this characteristic, but it can be a slippery slope.. do you censor articles discussing techniques used for potentially obscene printing? Do you censor articles discussing techniques that are illegal in some countries? Do you censor articles discussing something you've had a phobia about since you were a child? Etc.)

Although philisophical arguments can be made that RepRaps should only be used for happy good things, historically, I believe much good has come from military and 'dangerous use' research.

I kind of like Johnny Cooper's take on it:
[reprap.org]

Handgun discussion tends to turn into "of course you can't do it like that, you'd have to do it like this (see attatched)" which is why I brought out the large heavy bludgeon of censorship.

Let me put it this way: you're the philosopher king in charge of 'BeagleFuria'. Should a .stl of a reprappable handgun be protected speech? Do you want your (hypothetical) three teenage kids making them?

Of course, since you're the driver
Do you want a long drawn out policy debate and ensuing democratic vote, even as the same time as you personally (presumably) aren't interested in designing or fabricating a handgun? Is the discussion a good use of our time?

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

SebastienBailard Wrote:
> Let me put it this way: you're the philosopher
> king in charge of 'BeagleFuria'. Should a .stl of
> a reprappable handgun be protected speech? Do you
> want your (hypothetical) three teenage kids making
> them?

I'd move it to a forum with appropriate disclaimers and warnings, and hopefully technology to allow parents to have the false sense of security that they can block those forums from their tech savy teen children.

This allows me several advantages:

1. If someone who normally likes this kind of 'dangerous' says something that is great and amazing, and applicable at broader scope, I post a fork that discussion in the 'safe' forums.

2. If someone sues the site for content, I have a viable legal defense as a media transport rather than content provider --- as soon as I start censoring, I incur greater risk for lawsuits for content produced by people posting to my forum. (At least, in the US. Not sure about other countries.)
- Note: I believe I can delete/censor content which legally would be a violation of the law -- as in this case, it is not my choice to censor, but simply my duty as a law abiding citizen for the country I live in...
- I believe you live in canada? Under this, I'm not sure where canada sits for the right of free speech for devices you should not legally be able to own...? In this case, perhaps you do have the obligation to lock that thread?


> Do you want a long drawn out policy debate and
> ensuing democratic vote, even as the same time as
> you personally (presumably) aren't interested in
> designing or fabricating a handgun? Is the
> discussion a good use of our time?

I would be interested in the (non-troll based) discussion. I'm not of the mind that if I close my eyes, plug my ears, and hum loudly, that no one could possibly produce such a device. I would also be interested from the technology perspective -- if someone can create a device with the tolerances able to make a long term use plastic hand gun, that same device could likely be used to create a piston engine, stirling, rankin, diesel, etc.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2010 12:22PM by BeagleFury.

No one is saying that it will never be possible to make anything dangerous with a RepRap - in fact, I've hurt myself several times already just by being incautious around various high-energy bits here and there.

The point is, weapons research isn't welcome here. It's a bit like spam - just because it's possible to advertise unrelated business opportunities here does not mean that it is a good idea to do so.

And I don't think anyone here has the time to become the "Team America : World Police" of the rapid prototyping world. Talk about herding cats.

Wade

No one is saying that it will never be possible to make anything dangerous with a RepRap.

Yup. I think it very likely that someone will figure it out shortly. I just don't want us doing it in our space.

2. If someone sues the site for content, I have a viable legal defense as a media transport rather than content provider --- as soon as I start censoring, I incur greater risk for lawsuits for content produced by people posting to my forum.

That may be what the law says right now. (All that stuff is written in the sand, really.) My gut tells me: we don't do that stuff here. I think a jury might agree with my gut in this case, regarding culpability, ethics, and responsibility. "Your Honor, we're just hosting "plastic_handgun.stl" as media transport, etc. etc." Regardless, I think it is wrong for us to do it.

There's a fascinating kernel of discussion here regarding definitions of speech, stl file, content, media, research, weapon, ethics, laws, etc. Meh. My gut says it is wrong.

Model engineering / making engines is cool, though, and research / play on that subject is welcome. (As long as it is flagged with gentle caveats on safe hobby practices around boilers, compressed air, flammable liquids, etc.)

BeagleFury, do you want us to host weapons research?

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may be what the law says right now... I think a jury might agree with my gut ...

Exactly. So, the content that you thought was perfectly reasonable hosting (that pink lady model, for example) causes someone to sue you because their 11 year old printed it out and became a sexual deviant... they sue you because you didn't censor, even though you did censor model like you did for the model of a BB gun that would have allowed them to shoot their eye out.

The legal risk is not related to weapons, but other content that you do not censor that dangerous information; by censoring some things, you've shown you share the responsibility with posters for information others read on your site.

Wacky laws, I know, but someone has to pay for the nice cars lawyers drive.


> BeagleFury, do you want us to host weapons
> research?

I do not really have an interest in weapons as weapons... that said, I don't believe that everyone interested in this kind of discussion and activity is a homocidal maniac who wants to shoot people. I have several friends who would probably be very interested in experimenting and designing weapons (A friend is an avid musket loader gun 'nut' -- likes to do the whole history military re-enactment type stuff; makes his own bullets, maintains a reasonably good size gun collection, etc.) Assuming he does not break any laws, I see no reason why I should stop his discussion or research using RepRap technology, should he be interested in it.

I've grown to have a preference to prioritize the freedom to exchange information above the preference to try to limit information someone else has decided is "dangerous". I don't want others making that decision for me.


Also, just so it's clear, I'm not really upset by this.. just pointing out that there are many different points of view about what constitutes 'dangerous', and many different perspectives on whether someone else should decide what you should or should not talk about. I actually think some threads probably merit locking and deleting -- those completely off topic, those trolling for flame wars, fraudulant ads, etc.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2010 09:31AM by BeagleFury.

Law aside, this reminds me that we should probably have a prominent safety page. The last thing I'd want is for someone to hurt themselves, either when building their reprap, using it, or using things printed by it...

No way to restrict such content to requiring a login to the site with *confirmed* legal age requirement ?

as for hosting the content I would suggest that it is better the users who host the content
themselves where it is potentially dangerous in an unknown persons hands...

relying on the social web of trust here for membership is not a total safe option,
but introducing censorship with regards to "adult" or "dangerous" materials...

I can personally see the argument the other way as well...
so I would accept discussion of the subject but not accept models to be hosted with the
discussion itself (the discussion is safer than the printable objects).

Mr.Moderator... is there any options in this forum software for "age boundaries" or
blocking adding attachments to messages within a certain topical area?

Relegation of "Adult" and "Weapons" discussions without models attached *may* be
a potentially acceptable middle ground where the forum can have limitations markings
applied to such discussion sections of the forum?

Would this actually place you into the "transport only" category of the American Safe Harbor
legal mumbo jumbo? ... can anyone else clarify? is this a possible "safe path"?

My own instincts would be to do that and actively have those sections moderated.

Jeremy Kajikawa

Relegation of "Adult" and "Weapons" discussions without models attached *may* be
a potentially acceptable middle ground where the forum can have limitations markings
applied to such discussion sections of the forum?

So, we play host to a 'let's design a plastic derringer (no kids)' forum ... and then 6 months later a child accidentally uses the model the adults designed to slay a playmate ...

I don't see how this makes the world a better place.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Relegation of "Adult" and "Weapons" discussions
> without models attached *may* be
> a potentially acceptable middle ground where the
> forum can have limitations markings
> applied to such discussion sections of the forum?
>
> So, we play host to a 'let's design a plastic
> derringer (no kids)' forum ... and then 6 months
> later a child accidentally uses the model the
> adults designed to slay a playmate ...
>
> I don't see how this makes the world a better
> place.

The prejudice against guns and weapons never ceases to bemuse me. Silly people! While accidents do happen, a gun is much safer to have around the house than an automobile! Intentional uses of guns (even if you omit hunting, military, and target practice) vastly outnumber accidents. Even if you omit the illegal uses of guns and count only shots fired in self-defense by a civilian, you'll still hugely outweigh the accidents.

It is perhaps best summed up by a friend of mine who always carries a gun. I asked why, and he replied "Because I was once in a situation where I needed a gun. And I didn't have one." Think about that.

While it's true that a reprap-logo all-plastic (or mostly plastic) gun may someday accidentally kill a child, it's a fairly remote chance. OTOH, it's a certainty that such a weapon (easily available even in remote areas etc) would be used hundreds if not thousands of times in legitimate self-defense and resistance to tyranny. Restricting such people to zip guns which are generally poorly designed and have no safety features whatsoever would not only reduce the protection (usefulness) available, but would make accidents far more likely. Better to have safe designs readily available.

A gun is a tool like any other. Like many other tools, it's capable of severely injuring and even killing the user or others if used improperly. The more useful a tool the more dangerous it tends to be. From ladders to arc welders to high-speed presses, death and injuries occur, the goal is to reduce the accident rate while still preserving the usefulness of the tool. Why shouldn't the same approach apply to guns?

Now, it is possible that in the UK where guns are illegal (and thus only criminals have them) that they're used more often to commit crimes than prevent them, but here in the US that's certainly not the case. Many people I know never go into the mountains without a gun, as the wildlife is simply too dangerous.

Of course, pointing out that it's a silly restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction. I'd just advise you to stick to "we don't do that here, it's against policy and that's that." rather that try to emotionally or logically justify an unjustifiable position. That'll end the discussion quicker and step on fewer toes.

---

--
I'm building it with Baling Wire

Just to add in my own two cents and a real-world example, I have an .STL file for an AR-15 lower receiver that I've modified in order to strengthen the lugs for the front take-down pin, strengthen the lugs for the bolt catch, and added a trigger guard. I've successfully printed it. (the white one was a 75% scale test of an unmodified receiver with sparse infill, the black one is a full size version with my modifications printed with a solid infill).

I'd very much like to share the .STL with others and discuss how the design can be improved, what features can be added/removed, if the bolt catch lugs will still break off even after having reinforced them, etc. However, as the proposed library policy is that "files and projects to build weapons are not allowed in the Library", I'll refrain from uploading the STL at this time. More disturbing to me is the statement on the Health & Safety page that says "the RepRap researchers will work actively to inhibit and to subvert the use of RepRap for weapons production, whether by individuals, companies, or governments." What exactly does this mean? Will Sebastien break into my house at night to steal my RepRap to ensure I don't make new grip panels for my 1911? Will developers start adding watermarking technology to Skeinforge to make sure nobody can print a mag follower? Does Vik's 'sound moderator' make him persona non grata amongst the RepRap devs?

---

[haveblue.org]

Many countries do not have the same gun freedom we have here in the US, and that probably will never change. If gun mods get posted on the wiki, their government might just firewall the whole site, denying it's people access to reprap in toto (and also denying us of the innovations their population might bring).

So i don't think the reprap wiki is the place for these modifications/replacement parts, and self-censoring protects the project from (the much more overbearing) government censorship.

Both of the modifications you have listed are posted on thingiverse, and that's where they should be; Far away from implicating reprap.org. And if thingiverse takes them down, you are free to make a site dedicated to 'controversial' things. I just think the reprap.org wiki should steer clear of these issues, so we can continue refining our printers without unwanted scrutiny.

I don't disagree that the wiki is a sub-optimal location to upload my receiver file to if it's purely for the sake of discussing how to print better AR-15 parts. Thingiverse is the ideal repository, though it says 'please don't upload weapons' right on their upload page, so I'm not sure why the mag follower is allowed (though I'm glad it is - will need to print a few to try out).

I'm much more concerned about the 'inhibit and subvert' clause, as that line seems to indicate activity far beyond "don't put gun parts on the wiki". Are the RepRap devs going to raid Remington Arms Co. if they buy a Makerbot to supplement the Stratasys they already have?

---

[haveblue.org]