Nobody doubts the shutdown is to prevent citizens from seeing the files, not foreigners. Ergo, censorship.

It's censorship either way.

In most contexts we interpret "speech" quite broadly. Speech is the transmission of information. Blueprints consist of information structured in a particular meticulous way which can be beautiful as well as practical and informative. Novels and paintings also fit that description. A painting could show how a bomb is constructed. A novel could explain how to commit a crime.

So I'm surprised public-domain blueprints aren't already considered "speech" as a matter of settled law. In the case of commercial blueprints I suppose I could imagine an argument for considering them "proprietary information", but in this case where the producer wants the information to get out and is not claiming copyright over it...posting a blueprint on the web is like posting a flyer on a telephone pole. It's a speech act. The federal government isn't generally allowed to prohibit speech acts.

How is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech? AYFKM

don't beg the question.

there's no need for cursing.

That is not what "beg the question" means. Begging the question refers to a form of argument in which the final conclusion was earlier presented as a given. That is, a circular argument.

I restated the question, to highlight the absurdity of it. That is not begging the question.

restating the thread:

steve19: 'legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license'

glenra: 'how did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?'

nness: 'how would this be a first amendment issue?'

in nness's comment, i am assuming 'this' is 'exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license'

in other words: 'how would exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license be a first amendment issue?'

you restated this as: 'how is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech?' first amendment issue very easily transforms to freedom of speech, but 'exporting blueprints about weapons' does not easily transform to 'censorship of speech'

nness question is essentially 'how does exporting weapon blueprints relate to freedom of speech?' it is not an absurd question.

you responded by equating 'exporting weapon blueprints' with 'censoring speech' with no argument, presupposing the conclusion from the question. ergo, begging the question.