The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing (eff.org)

Article summary

California's proposed bill A.B. 2047 aims to mandate censorware on 3D printers, which would block the printing of certain objects, including firearm parts. The bill would also criminalize the use of open-source alternatives and impose significant burdens on manufacturers and consumers. Critics argue that this legislation will stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and create new cybersecurity risks. The bill's provisions are seen as overly broad and likely to be ineffective in achieving its intended purpose.

Main themes

• 3D printing regulation
• Censorship and free speech
• Gun control and firearm legislation
• Innovation and consumer choice
• Cybersecurity and surveillance

What commenters say

• The proposed bill is unworkable and will have unintended consequences, such as driving innovation underground and creating new cybersecurity risks.
• Regulating 3D printing is pointless because individuals can still assemble unlicensed printers or modify licensed ones to bypass restrictions.
• The bill's focus on 3D printing is misguided, and efforts to control gun violence should instead target ammunition and gunpowder.
• Taxing ammunition could be an effective way to reduce gun violence, but implementing such a tax would be complex and potentially problematic.
• Voter ID laws and gun control laws are often inconsistent and hypocritical, with some states requiring ID for one but not the other.
• The proposed bill will stifle innovation and limit consumer choice, particularly for smaller manufacturers and individuals who rely on open-source alternatives.
• The legislation will create a black market for 3D printed goods and drive the industry underground, making it harder to regulate and control.
• The bill's provisions are overly broad and will have a chilling effect on free speech and creativity, as individuals will be hesitant to experiment with new designs and ideas.