3 ms·

I submit this is cynical. To call this speech is just misleading. Laws will always be around to make people do things they don't want to do. To twist this into

by swehner 11y ago

I submit this is cynical. To call this speech is just misleading. Laws will always be around to make people do things they don't want to do. To twist this into some kind of speech issue is silly.

morninj 11y ago
If writing code isn't speech, what is it?
- EGreg 11y ago
  Speaking!
- hunter2_ 11y ago
  Is it only speech/writing because high level languages are like English? Are low level languages, down to the point of setting individual bits, also speech/writing? Is flipping a bank of 8 single pole single throw switches speech/writing?
  - sigmar 11y ago
    When we refer to 1st amendment free "speech," we are not referring to the physical act of speaking words, but to the general act of expression
  - colejohnson66 11y ago
    If your reason for flipping those switches is to express an idea, then yes. If for some reason the number 7 was outlawed and you decided to flip those switches to 00000111, you'd be protected by the First Amendment. Before someone says outlawing a number won't ever happen, look up what a Free Speech Flag[1] is. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag
    - hunter2_ 11y ago
      > your reason Does it come down to exclusively my reason? My reason might go uncommunicated, and if so, does someone else get to infer my reason? Setting the state of physical switches being considered an expression of an opinion/idea (speech) also seems like a slippery slope toward all other physical actions being speech if "my reason" agrees.
      - colejohnson66 11y ago
        That's why we have the courts to rule exactly what is and isn't protected (versus having a big long list needing constant revision [like the DMCA exception list]). Granted, flipping switches isn't the best example, but if Free Speech Flags are protected, I can't see why flipping a set of switches is any different. Now, IANAL, but the act of writing the AACS encryption key to your RAM (I would assume) is protected (websites listing it place it in your RAM). But if you were to actually use that key in ways not allowed by the DMCA, then you're not protected. > Setting the state of physical switches being considered an expression of an opinion/idea (speech) also seems like a slippery slope toward all other physical actions being speech if "my reason" agrees. I can't imagine why setting those switches as an act of defiance would be illegal, but if the number "7" was the encryption key for a DVD, actually using those switches as the encryption key would be illegal. Again, IANAL, and this is just speculation based on my understanding of the law
  - euyyn 11y ago
    And why wouldn't it? Morse code and braille don't look like English either.
kdkooo 11y ago
I agree with this. The company has many other ways of expressing their beliefs, but calling the code specifically a form of speech feels like a stretch. Overall I am on Apple's side of this. But while this article makes an interesting argument, I just don't think I buy it.
millstone 11y ago
An analogy is the government forcing you to draw something objectionable, and then sign your name to it. That's clearly unconstitutional compelled speech, plus the mere existence of an obscene work signed by you could seriously harm your reputation as an artist. Here the creative work is software, and the signature is digital, but the principle is the same.
- swehner 11y ago
  Exactly, that's not a free speech issue, and talking like that is cynical.
  - millstone 11y ago
    What are you talking about? Compelling an artist to create and sign a work is absolutely a free speech issue.
    - swehner 11y ago
      Here is how one commonly goes about defining free speech, "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." So that's a great freedom. What you're saying is the other way around.
      - euyyn 11y ago
        FWIU, _compelled speech_ is unconstitutional too.
        swehner 11y ago
        How do you distinguish this case from the obligation to sign tax returns? (I think that is 26 U.S. Code § 6061, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6061 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6061) The talk a bit about it here, https://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E https://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivol... And this is kind of similar but about the 5th Amendment. http://openjurist.org/775/f2d/1292/eh-mosher-v-internal-revenue-service http://openjurist.org/775/f2d/1292/eh-mosher-v-internal-reve...
colejohnson66 11y ago
The courts have ruled consistently that software code is speech
sdenton4 11y ago
I disagree. The case they're making here is really interesting: a software signature is a statement in support of the software object, and compelling the signature is essentially compelling Apple to vouch for something they don't believe in.

by swehner 11y ago

I submit this is cynical. To call this speech is just misleading. Laws will always be around to make people do things they don't want to do. To twist this into some kind of speech issue is silly.

morninj 11y ago

If writing code isn't speech, what is it?

EGreg 11y ago
Speaking!
hunter2_ 11y ago
Is it only speech/writing because high level languages are like English? Are low level languages, down to the point of setting individual bits, also speech/writing? Is flipping a bank of 8 single pole single throw switches speech/writing?
- sigmar 11y ago
  When we refer to 1st amendment free "speech," we are not referring to the physical act of speaking words, but to the general act of expression
- colejohnson66 11y ago
  If your reason for flipping those switches is to express an idea, then yes. If for some reason the number 7 was outlawed and you decided to flip those switches to 00000111, you'd be protected by the First Amendment. Before someone says outlawing a number won't ever happen, look up what a Free Speech Flag[1] is. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Flag
  - hunter2_ 11y ago
    > your reason Does it come down to exclusively my reason? My reason might go uncommunicated, and if so, does someone else get to infer my reason? Setting the state of physical switches being considered an expression of an opinion/idea (speech) also seems like a slippery slope toward all other physical actions being speech if "my reason" agrees.
    - colejohnson66 11y ago
      That's why we have the courts to rule exactly what is and isn't protected (versus having a big long list needing constant revision [like the DMCA exception list]). Granted, flipping switches isn't the best example, but if Free Speech Flags are protected, I can't see why flipping a set of switches is any different. Now, IANAL, but the act of writing the AACS encryption key to your RAM (I would assume) is protected (websites listing it place it in your RAM). But if you were to actually use that key in ways not allowed by the DMCA, then you're not protected. > Setting the state of physical switches being considered an expression of an opinion/idea (speech) also seems like a slippery slope toward all other physical actions being speech if "my reason" agrees. I can't imagine why setting those switches as an act of defiance would be illegal, but if the number "7" was the encryption key for a DVD, actually using those switches as the encryption key would be illegal. Again, IANAL, and this is just speculation based on my understanding of the law
- euyyn 11y ago
  And why wouldn't it? Morse code and braille don't look like English either.

kdkooo 11y ago

I agree with this. The company has many other ways of expressing their beliefs, but calling the code specifically a form of speech feels like a stretch. Overall I am on Apple's side of this. But while this article makes an interesting argument, I just don't think I buy it.

millstone 11y ago

An analogy is the government forcing you to draw something objectionable, and then sign your name to it. That's clearly unconstitutional compelled speech, plus the mere existence of an obscene work signed by you could seriously harm your reputation as an artist. Here the creative work is software, and the signature is digital, but the principle is the same.

swehner 11y ago
Exactly, that's not a free speech issue, and talking like that is cynical.
- millstone 11y ago
  What are you talking about? Compelling an artist to create and sign a work is absolutely a free speech issue.
  - swehner 11y ago
    Here is how one commonly goes about defining free speech, "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." So that's a great freedom. What you're saying is the other way around.
    - euyyn 11y ago
      FWIU, _compelled speech_ is unconstitutional too.
      - swehner 11y ago
        How do you distinguish this case from the obligation to sign tax returns? (I think that is 26 U.S. Code § 6061, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6061 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6061) The talk a bit about it here, https://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E https://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivol... And this is kind of similar but about the 5th Amendment. http://openjurist.org/775/f2d/1292/eh-mosher-v-internal-revenue-service http://openjurist.org/775/f2d/1292/eh-mosher-v-internal-reve...

colejohnson66 11y ago

The courts have ruled consistently that software code is speech

sdenton4 11y ago

I disagree. The case they're making here is really interesting: a software signature is a statement in support of the software object, and compelling the signature is essentially compelling Apple to vouch for something they don't believe in.