I’m not up to debate at this moment, (comments are still welcome, of course).
I strongly believe that ALL information should be legal so long as the distributor has not signed a contract to uphold any educational responsabilities. Information in the sense, not as “TRUTH” but as anything which can be somehow read.
If you’re a school, you can’t lie and you can’t spam things for no reason.
If you’re not a school, your incrimination simply cannot be based on things that come from your computer, or pieces of paper. Period.
To be a criminal- you have to yell, hit, scream, break, steal . . . or you have to breach a contract that you signed. There has to be violence, direct betrayal. It has to be non-meta.
If you build a gun to shoot someone, you can be incriminated for having the gun built- allowing its susceptibility to your whim. You are not incriminated for programming the gun. You are not an accomplis to murder if you offer someone money to kill someone. You are an accomplis to murder by transferring your money between institutions when you have contracts with them to use the money in some responsable manner.
The choice is a combination of ethics and feasability. Some get away with rather frightening things. But ultimately something has to be very poignantly done somehow to be criminal. The rules are iron clad as to where government does not have control.
The downside: Nobody owns copyright. Nobody takes the fall for trying to hack.
The upside: Nobody is banned from seeing what they want (and the requirement for money is a form of banishment). Nobody is at jeapordy when expressing anything. Dictatorship does not slowly weasel its way through freedom of speach (hence democracy).
Is there a short term to describe this perception?
Oh dear . . . I feel an “in your poorly conceived ideal” response coming on. I guess I have to take it. 