This is a pretty good analysis of the 'code = speech' argument: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600916/apples-code-speech-mistake/ https://www.technologyrevi

This is a pretty good analysis of the 'code = speech' argument: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600916/apples-code-speech-mistake/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600916/apples-code-speech.... It's analysis I hadn't really considered before and you might find it interesting. That said, I agree it's a bad idea that Apple be asked to write legislation where they're compelled to comply for other reasons. Excerpt: "But on the other hand, and critically, there are many things that humans will do with code that will have nothing to do with the First Amendment (e.g., launching denial of service attacks and writing computer viruses). Code = Speech is a fallacy because it would needlessly treat writing the code for a malicious virus as equivalent to writing an editorial in the New York Times. Similarly, if companies use algorithms to discriminate on the basis of race or sex, wrapping those algorithms with the same constitutional protection we give to political novels would needlessly complicate civil rights law in the digital age. It’s easy to argue that Code = Speech, but accepting that argument would create a mess, and an avoidable one at that. It’s harder to look at what the government is trying to do, and harder to figure out whether this is in conflict with the values the First Amendment protects, but that’s the way the law works. The hard way is also far more preferable to giving tech companies whose businesses run on code a free pass from the kinds of meaningful regulation we’ve imposed upon other companies since the New Deal."