can bitcoin be protected by freedom of speech?

[grondilu]

An interesting legal idea here:

I doubt Bitcoin will be made illegal. By itself, the Bitcoin network is just a mechanism for passing around signed messages and calculating hash values. It would be difficult to outlaw that without running into constitutional free speech issues.

I tend to agree with that.

[grue]

just say "terrorism" or "child porn", and people will be ok with any constitutional right breach.

[em3rgentOrdr]

just say "terrorism" or "child porn", and people will be ok with any constitutional right breach.

+1

[grondilu]

just say "terrorism" or "child porn", and people will be ok with any constitutional right breach.

+1

I'm afraid you're right guys.  I totally forgot about those magic words.

[error]

But...but... Osama's dead!!

[c-rock]

Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.

He got it in the pooper from the feds.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.

He got it in the pooper from the feds.

Arguably that was a trademark/intellectual property issue since he used the term" dollar".

[FreeMoney]

Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.

He got it in the pooper from the feds.

Obviously what they did to him is criminal, but he couldn't use the argument that he was only passing information.

Anyway, I don't think it matters much. I'd almost rather they make it illegal so that people who don't care end up richer in the new society. I think Bitcoin overcomes any law. Enforcement requires a completely totalitarian regime, I don't think it'll happen.

[FreeMoney]

Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.

He got it in the pooper from the feds.

Arguably that was a trademark/intellectual property issue since he used the term" dollar".

That touches on a different point. Intellectual property and trademark laws are violations of free speech too.

[wareen]

I doubt Bitcoin will be made illegal. By itself, the Bitcoin network is just a mechanism for passing around signed messages and calculating hash values. It would be difficult to outlaw that without running into constitutional free speech issues.

I think that's a bit too simplistic in today's world - "passing around (signed) messages" is basically the only thing the internet does, so if you see that protected by freedom of speech there would be no such thing as cybercrime, right?
Freedom of speech was probably originally not intended for anything like the internet, where "speech" suddenly got much more powerful - a simple data-packet (=speech) can be anything, from intellectual property to malicious code.

Although I do sympathize with the "no data packet is illegal" point of view but to justify that only with the first amendment is probably not enough. On the other hand I am not from the US, so I might be wrong about how far you go with freedom of speech.

Sadly, with the "magic words" mentioned, severe cuts to basic civil freedoms seem to be justified pretty much anywhere in the world...

[grondilu]

I doubt Bitcoin will be made illegal. By itself, the Bitcoin network is just a mechanism for passing around signed messages and calculating hash values. It would be difficult to outlaw that without running into constitutional free speech issues.

I think that's a bit too simplistic in today's world - "passing around (signed) messages" is basically the only thing the internet does, so if you see that protected by freedom of speech there would be no such thing as cybercrime, right?

Execpt that here the message is nothing but an arithmetic transfer of some artificial amount.

[Pieter Wuille]

Freedom of speech only means no law is allowed that would prevent people from expressing their opinions (afaik, ianal).

[barbarousrelic]

Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.

He got it in the pooper from the feds.

Norfed tried this defense. The Liberty Dollar warehouse receipts have this printed on theom:

"Receipt is an exercise of the bearer's First Amendment right to petition the government for a silver based currency as mandated by the US Constitution."

[da2ce7]

Freedom of speech only means no law is allowed that would prevent people from expressing their opinions (afaik, ianal).

A Bitcoin transaction is nothing more than a expression of your view of who should be the new owner of your coins.

[grondilu]

Freedom of speech only means no law is allowed that would prevent people from expressing their opinions (afaik, ianal).

A Bitcoin transaction is nothing more than a expression of your view of who should be the new owner of your coins.

Very true.   +1

[deadlizard]

I have to laugh every time an American refers to their constitution as if it's relevant.
America has been in a state of emergency since 1933. The constitution no longer applies.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Look at the Liberty Dollar guy.

He got it in the pooper from the feds.

Arguably that was a trademark/intellectual property issue since he used the term" dollar".

That touches on a different point. Intellectual property and trademark laws are violations of free speech too.

I believe that as well.  However, the SCOTUS subscribes to a different, flawed logic system. 

[sapnu]

An interesting legal idea here:

I doubt Bitcoin will be made illegal. By itself, the Bitcoin network is just a mechanism for passing around signed messages and calculating hash values. It would be difficult to outlaw that without running into constitutional free speech issues.

I tend to agree with that.

Freedom of speech is indeed powerful but if it is against the law, I think its power can be neutralized at some point. No matter how much people are opening up or fighting for bitcoin's right to be legalized but still if the law of a certain country's government dictates that bitcoin does not deserve to be regulated yet, it cannot be pushed through for sure. Nevertheless, people will still find ways on how they can access crypto regardless of having their country banning it. Words are powerful as always but with the existence of the government, it can be outpowered and be disregarded no matter how powerful it has been.

[maisao1991]

I feel this could happen if BTC is not used to launder money for bad people to use and trade illegally, if identities are clear or exchanges should have KYC measures in place. There's no reason why BTC shouldn't be protected because it's transparently and transparently traded.

[Cvetik56]

It can't and if they find a reasons to think that BTC is real threat they'll ban it. But it still can't be killed unless you destroy the whole internet.