I wonder what would happen if someone wore a T-shirt with an ITAR restricted weapons blueprint on it or something. Hypothetically it would be legal to display that in public in the US, but illegal to post it publicly facing for foreigners to access on the internet.
Even if it were a gray area, the serious penalties would probably be enough to make someone want to blur it out.
> Hypothetically it would be legal to display that in public in the US
Would it? I'm certainly not a lawyer or ITAR expert, but I would think that if you walked through a public space where you couldn't positively confirm that everyone present (and everyone who might view it transitively via video recordings, live streams, etc.) was OK to access the materiel on the shirt, that would be considered an export and you'd be in big trouble.
I'm no ITAR expert either, but IDK how wearing a T-shirt could possibly be an export. My lay understanding of export is that the information would somehow have to leave the country; if someone looks at the T-shirt and transmits it out the country they'd be the exporter, not the person wearing the T-shirt. If someone records the t-shirt and transmits it, they'd be the exporter.
>My lay understanding of export is that the information would somehow have to leave the country;
It's not just physical items like munitions, but also things like transfers of information (blueprints, technical data, documentation, etc.) or services being performed, regardless of where (inside or outside the USA) or how (paper, electronic, verbal, etc.) it takes place.
Have a look at [1] § 120.50 (Export) and § 120.63 (definition of Foreign person).
>if someone looks at the T-shirt and transmits it out the country they'd be the exporter, not the person wearing the T-shirt.
I believe the person wearing the shirt would be considered the exporter, as that is the point where the information moves from (I'm assuming for the purposes of conversation) an USA citizen to a foreign person.
But again, I could be wrong. Safest bet is not to print the shirt to begin with :)
Hmm... I'd be interested to look at any 1A cases regarding that. I'm unable to find any 1A exceptions regarding mere information on weapons. The US is allowed to suspend constitutional rights at border controls, which is how they prevent exporting the information outside the US, but I'd bet dollars to donuts the blueprints/information part is unenforceable as non-commercial speech within the US.
Here's an example of T-shirt with a machinegun blueprint on it for instance, for sale in USA without any checks as to your immigration status [note US law considers a device that induces automatic fire as a 'machinegun' despite the fact the device itself isn't really a gun]:
I'll continue in the "not an expert" chain, but my understanding is that ITAR's prohibitions include communicating the information to a non-US person (a US person is a citizen or permanent resident), even if that is done on US soil.
My understanding following Cody Wilson's lawsuit to publish gun plans online, which is a more recent case, did not follow that. He ended up having to follow ITAR export compliance, although he was allowed unlimited distribution to US nationals and granted an ITAR license that might let him export under the conditions of that license.
On remand to the district court, and on the eve of changes to the federal export regulations, the U.S. State Department offered to settle the case, and on July 27, 2018, Defense Distributed accepted a license to publish its files along with a sum of almost $40,000.[6][7]
Nowadays you'll find most gun plans end up on odyssee or surreptitiously on github or something like that. If you go to high-profile 3d gun websites they will almost always point you to a decentralized server that the government can't go after.
It seems maybe they might allow you to export it, but you'd have to get a license first, even if they were required to issue it to you could take years of lawsuits that a youtuber probably will not pursue?
Even if it were a gray area, the serious penalties would probably be enough to make someone want to blur it out.