AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about whether the government can prevent you from speaking, not there are 0 consequences to all speech.
When I think that, I also think, "but isn't it bad to Illegal talking decryption?"
Then I think: Law is ambiguous compared to a logical proof, and can only be seen through cases.
I resolve that I'll be the first to stand up and scream if they deport someone for simply discussing the academics of DVD decryption, and that's enough to make me feel comfortable saying it's okay the DMCA is used to prevent stealing.
> AFAIK the 1st Amendment is about whether the government can prevent you from speaking, not there are 0 consequences to all speech.
1A prevents the government from punishing or compelling speech. it's not absolute - slander and death threats aren't protected, for example - but it's pretty broad. you can publish classified documents, for example. the leaker can be punished, but not the journalist.
1A doesn't just protect your right to speak while somehow not protecting you from arrest for your speech. punishment is how all laws are enforced.
I think the ball is being hidden here while responding to a strawman, here's me waving the ball around high in the air:
I agree: other than innumerable exceptions*, 1st amendment says you don't get punished for just speaking something.
* slander & death threats are scratching the surface, a brief tour of SEC cases alone would leave you with hundreds. Easiest one for you to see why the simplistic view espoused is blinkered, is probably...idk, disturbing the peace.
I apologize for strawmanning, I misunderstood your position. Yes, disturbing the peace is such an example, though like disorderly conduct it's somewhat prone to abuse as a charge.
My position is that 1A ought to protect the publication and discussion of vulnerabilities, encryption algorithms, software etc. as speech. Like how PGP was first published as a book listing the source code on printed pages. Unless a tool has absolutely no redeeming value besides breaking the law.
So I think Switch emulators ought to be protected, if they can be used for some legitimate purpose like benchmarking, homebrew, etc. (minus any copyrighted ROM dumps, of course.) Same with youtube-dlp, same with forensic tools like Ghidra and unpackers.
When I think that, I also think, "but isn't it bad to Illegal talking decryption?"
Then I think: Law is ambiguous compared to a logical proof, and can only be seen through cases.
I resolve that I'll be the first to stand up and scream if they deport someone for simply discussing the academics of DVD decryption, and that's enough to make me feel comfortable saying it's okay the DMCA is used to prevent stealing.