She should really have asked Cansellarion if Lieutenant Jeres has all of the project context or if she is supposed to explain that. "...guns and prototypes, tools, cartridges, casting equipment, the radio transmission equipment…"

"We can get a couple bags of holding."

"Thank you, sir. Is there anything we should know about - Osirion, or how the project scope will change - Cansellarion said you'd have instructions for me about censorship -"

"The radio project will continue as normal, but without any incitement to crime or proselytizing for anarchic gods. There are other laws about what you can say but those are the only ones that would've been violated by previous broadcasts. We'll go over the rest when we get there and have a local expert on hand. I have no orders regarding the scope of the engineering projects, I assume they are to continue as normal subject to the constraints imposed by the workspace and limited tooling." Someone else has presumably been given management of the engineers, someone actually qualified for that job.

"Thank you, sir." Iomedae feels that a little incitement to crime is good for the development of a balanced character but that's honestly a lot less restrictive than it could be. They aren't demanding she not criticize their government. Yet. 

Osirian law does not prohibit criticizing the conduct of the pharaoh's ministers. It does prohibit falsely claiming that the pharaoh himself is in error, what with how he is Abadar and most such claims are facially incorrect when you realize you're making them about Abadar. They prohibit incitement to crime and evangelism for anarchic gods and evangelism for evil gods and obscenity and libel. They really feel they are being very reasonable. 

Iomedae tries not to glance at Alfirin during this lecture because if they get indignant together they'll be more indignant than it is wise to be in front of the Osirians. "I intend to obey your laws," she says.

The Osirian looks slightly surprised by this, actually. Freedom does not come across as the kind of person who believes one ought to obey laws. "We are glad to hear it."

"What counts as libel?" Alfirin asks immediately.

"Well, saying false things about someone which might damage their reputation."

"What about harmless false things? What about true things that damage their reputation - what about things that are false but which the person saying them believes to be true - or subjective judgements?"

"...well, be mindful that someone might disagree with you about whether a false thing you're saying is harmless. It is legal to say true things that have a negative effect on the person you speak of - you may complain that another merchant stole from you, if he did - but he can of course complain that it's untrue and that can be very expensive to settle, if it's very ambiguous. You can be subject to a penalty for the saying of a falsehood you thought was true; you shouldn't spread lies. Do you have an example in mind of a subjective judgment you'd want to declare?"

"Well, I might say that Alice is boring or that Bob is creepy or that Charlie is the worst person I've ever heard of."

"...well, you shouldn't offer people insults, and your father shouldn't let you, but it's not our business unless it causes some kind of a feud in the course of which people do more than try to provoke each other by saying things."

"So as I understand it, it is a crime to say something which, unbeknownst to me, is false and which also, unbeknownst to me, damages a person's reputation - I might say that Doug is very kind to orphaned children, but if it was actually Doug's long-lost twin brother that I saw giving money to orphans and Doug has carefully cultivated a prized reputation for cruelty and indifference to the plight of others - this could be a crime, even though, fully informed of the law, I would not be able to identify in advance that this speech act in particular was illegal - It seems to me that if I wish to follow the law, I had best not say anything about anybody. Is that so?"

"That is a matter that could in principle be brought to the government if the victimized party and your family were unable to reach an accord. I think that it is a great virtue to not say anything about anybody, and one I'd wholeheartedly recommend you exercise," says the Osirian local expert, moderately irritated.

"Is it definitely not a crime if I speak only in hypotheticals, say, for example, 'If that person I saw yesterday was Doug, I believe him to be very kind to orphaned children'?"

"I cannot think of any way that you could no matter how extraordinary your ignorance libel anyone in that fashion."

She bites back the temptation to try. "Does the same apply to claims which, if made incautiously and unreservedly, might be interpreted to be criticisms of the Pharaoh's policies?"

"I think that wise people tend to be cautious and reserved when making claims that might be interpreted to be criticisms of the Pharaoh's policies. They often disclaim, for example, that they can see only some and not all of the consequences relevant to policy decisions, and that the concern they note might well be well-answered even if they in their ignorance haven't seen the answer …do you also have a radio show?"

"Not yet." She is so tempted to say 'I'm waiting for Television' but it reveals secret information and isn't even true so she holds her tongue.

"If one doesn't have a radio show, then in nearly all cases if a person considers themselves wronged by false claims you're making about them, their family and yours will sort it out; it's a law, so they can bid for our intervention, but they almost never would, assuming anyone involved possesses some common sense. The radio show complicates matters because a falsehood spoken on the radio is heard by many thousands of people. I do not think you need to worry about what you say to your fellow foreigners in private; they'd have to ask us to intervene for us to end up doing so."

"I can see only some and not all of the consequences relevant to policy decisions, and these concerns I am noting might well be well-answered even if in my ignorance I have not seen the answer, but it sure seems to me as though this policy toward speech is ill-conceived; In making it impossible in principle to know whether acts are legal or not it makes it unnecessarily difficult to be a law-abiding citizen, which probably has deleterious second-order effects. On top of that I imgaine it has a broader chilling effect on speech and hence on innovation which is making this entire country poorer."

 "If anyone ever asks me what kinds of political opinions we miss out on by not listening to women I will pass that on."

"I can see only - you know, just take it as said. - That attitude towards women having political opinions is probably also making the entire country poorer. I have statistics on that one but they're classified."