#1 is certainly not a first amendment violation. In fact, the supreme court still holds that certain restrictions on billboards are allowed even for the purpose of preserving beauty. Safety is a much more compelling interest than beauty, so I don't expect states and cities will lose their ability to regulate road signage.

See Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego for example.

#2 is expensive and difficult, but that's what we do for explosives, poisons, drugs, etc.

Explosives, poisons, drugs aren’t speech. Printing the chemistry for then is protected speech.

If I wanted to print an image and put it on a t-shirt that would trick a computer driven car into doing something if its cameras saw my shirt, that’s not my problem. The barrier to entry is much lower too so I think it’s up to the engineers to solve it instead of trying to dump the hard problems on society.

This is like saying "if I set up a movement based explosive in a public place, and you just happened to walk by it, that's not my problem." Yes it is, you took actions that you knew could severely harm people.

No those are completely different. The physical act of owning an explosive can be made illegal and is. In the US the act of owning and expressing an element of speech is protected under US law.

You are getting close to something with you second statement. There are laws that criminalize actions like yelling 'Fire' inside a movie theater or provoking a fight (fighting words). Essentially these laws isolate the protected 'speech' from a non-speech and therefore non-protected 'action'.

However, it would be an extreme stretch to apply or expand these to apply to simply wearing a t-shirt. There is already plenty of case law that says wearing/displaying symbols or profanity is not enough to be considered fighting words/act. Heck, in most cases just using a racial epithet is not enough to be considered fighting words and/or hate speech. [1]

At most you will ever be able to convict is if someone is installing these adversarial images on public property (e.g street signs). In that case you might be able to use the harmful nature/intent of the images to elevate what would otherwise be a vandalism charge to assault. Essentially there needs to be a distinct and meaningful 'action' beyond just wearing/expressing speech.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-saying-the-n...

> The physical act of owning an explosive can be made illegal and is.

Then let me change my example to show legal items being used with the intent to cause harm is still illegal. I'm free to put razors into candy, but if I hand it out on Halloween it'd be illegal.

>However, it would be an extreme stretch to apply or expand these to apply to simply wearing a t-shirt. There is already plenty of case law that says wearing/displaying symbols or profanity is not enough to be considered fighting words/act.

This hypothetical T-shirt isn't comparable to fighting words, wearing it would unquestionably cause harm to the relevant ones who encounter it. Owning or creating it might not be a crime, but wearing it in public is endangering the public.

>wearing it in public is endangering the public.

Only because you're driving a car that was programmed by monkeys and sold by PT Barnum.

If your car can't tell the difference between a street sign and a T-shirt, it's really not fully self driving, is it?

I agree that it's a ridiculous hypothetical and any company shipping something like that should also face punishment.

Only the company shipping that should face punishment. Their code instructed a machine to kill people, etc. The hypothetical t-shirt is data, not code. These are very important distinctions. Code needs to be responsible for its data.

I’d even argue that to be used on public road that any self driving code needs to be open source.

>Their code instructed a machine to kill people, etc. The hypothetical t-shirt is data, not code.

It is data you are intentionally using to hurt someone. If a person legally gained access to a water treatment plant and sent inputs to poison the water, you wouldn't say that person only sent data and the code was at fault. The shirt is inputting data into the car the same way.

Tools should be made with safety in mind, but when people use them to cause harm the person is at fault too.

If I made a computer that explodes and catches fire when you type certain words into it, is it then the typists fault if that word gets typed?

Or have I been negligent by creating a device that is unable to process certain words without exploding? ie it can't do it's job properly and safely.

This hypothetical car is too badly designed to ignore things that aren't road signs.

A 5 year old can recognize if something is a road sign or not, and we don't let them drive.

That's how pathetic this car is.

Of course it shouldn't be allowed on a public road, and it shouldn't be allowed to be sold because it is unsafe.

>Of course it shouldn't be allowed on a public road, and it shouldn't be allowed to be sold because it is unsafe

I agree with this, that's separate from what I'm discussing.

If you made a computer that exploded when someone typed a word into it, and then I knew about this and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable.

>and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable.

Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? Who would think a computer would be made so poorly that it fails dangerously if the wrong word is typed in?

One could say they didn't believe it would be true because it sounds too implausible.

Same with a car that drives off the road if it sees the wrong thing on a t-shirt.

I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met. In my opinion they would be liable.

Otherwise terrorism can be legal if you slap an "AI" label on it.

>Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable?

The person who both knew that the computer was dangerous and directly caused someone to perform that dangerous act. Without them, it's possible no one gets injured.

>I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met.

As I keep telling you, neither do I.

I really don't understand your point of view. Of course companies shouldn't make unsafe products, but just because an unsafe product exists doesn't justify someone using that product to hurt someone. Just because the danger sounds implausible doesn't forgive the situation. It sounds implausible that touching a bit of metal would kill someone but if I made you touch a live wire I'd be at fault.

My point of view is that I support people's right to wear any shirt they want.

I don't think if people want to wear any shirt, even one specifically designed to fool garbage AI, that it is their fault that a car suddenly decides to kill people. If you want to sell a car it must be smart and safe enough to ignore any T-Shirt, poster or painting in it's vicinity, just like my old, non-garbage non-AI car.

If you can't do that, then you can't sell cars without being sued into oblivion. And that's the way it should be. Messing with street signs is already illegal. But wearing a shirt, no matter what it has on it, is not.

Someone could stand holding it in protest of self driving cars.

I doubt 1 would be protected by the first amendment. It’s arguably equivalent to spraying graffiti on a stop sign so it’s unrecognizable.

It would be an extremely difficult to enforce though.

Graffiti would just cause people to drive unsafely, in that hypothetical the sticker directly causes crashes. It'd be something like attempted murder.

Defacing property is not free speech...?

Just stand in view holding the image on a poster board.