If Tor researchers gave a presentation at a security conference on how to install Tor, knowing full well that some would use it to engage in the proliferation of CSAM, would that also not fall under free speech?
He applied for a travel exemption, and was denied. He went anyway. He was charged with that, not the speech. That's how its enforced, for this specific reason. Regulate the intermediary to control the desired behavior. Don't regulate the individual with first amendment rights.
North Korea is under international sanctions and part of that means you can't aid them. Explaining how to launder money and evade sanctions to a general audience is probably fine. Explaining how to launder money and evade sanctions to North Korea is against the law.
Asked why what he did wouldn't be protected by freedom of speech, the parent replied "freedom of speech is not absolute ... the guy violated a federal sanction."
I don't understand what you're implying about this thread of conversation - it seems fairly reasonable. The GP asked about freedom of speech - the parent didn't imply this is a freedom of speech issue. They explained why it isn't.
Russia now finds itself in much the same position thanks to Putin, so it's probably a good idea for everyone doing business there to familiarize themselves with economic actions being taken against that regime. Few people in the West ever attempted to do business with Pyongyang, but that's not true of Moscow. There's a lot more legal exposure, much of which will come as a surprise to those affected by it.
Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
Moreover, you forgot to read this part of what you linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subse...
> A unanimous Court in a brief per curiam opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), abandoned the disfavored language while seemingly applying the reasoning of Schenck to reverse the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member prosecuted for giving an inflammatory speech. The Court said that speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck.
> An american citizen cannot verbally harass someone...
They can, actually. See the quote from the wikipedia article above.
> ...they cannot go around telling everyone how to make a nuclear bomb.
_Pretty_ sure that they can. It's widely said that any physics graduate student can work out how to make a useful but basic nuke. The issue is _actually building one_, or sending the materials to construct one to a sanctioned nation.
First Amendment protections are _broad_ and exceptions to them have been (historically) carved out with _great_ reluctance. This is a feature, not a bug.
>They can, actually. See the quote from the wikipedia article above.
No they can’t. Verbal harassment is a crime. Someone can serve a year in jail for it the state of Colorado
Would you be so kind as to link to the text of the law in question? I expect that a critical part of the law will be something along the lines of "The harasser follows around the harassed, despite requests by the harassed that the harasser desist.", which makes it more than just a restriction on speech. If it's a _pure_ restriction on speech, then I expect that it will not survive a First Amendment challenge.
States can put whatever law they like into the books. States often have laws on the books that wouldn't withstand a Constitutional challenge. For example, even after Lawrence v. Texas, anti-sodomy laws were on the books in _many_ US states. If the state doesn't voluntarily remove a law, it takes expensive, slow court challenges to get rid of them.
For a more recent example of nasty state law that is unlikely to survive long-term, look at the Texas Heartbeat Act.
The fact that a state _really_ wants to prohibit something doesn't override Federal law that asserts that that something is _not_ to be prohibited. But -sadly- those fights frequently have to slog through the courts, so they don't happen nearly as often as they should.
…
(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person
…
(2) Harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that harassment is a class 1 misdemeanor if the offender commits harassment pursuant to subsection (1) of this section with the intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's actual or perceived race; color; religion; ancestry; national origin; physical or mental disability, as defined in section 18-9-121(5)(a) ; or sexual orientation, as defined in section 18-9-121(5)(b) .“
https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-s...
As opposed to being a hypothetical situation invented to justify the use of state violence to silence anti-war protestors. No one goes around saying "you can't be against a war!" when that is the actual precedent that was set in that case.
I.e. the GP didn't ask "how is this not a violation of the spirit of free speech", they asked, "why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech" (so it's not really "a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship" in this case).