5 ms·
I'm sort of asking if EFF's argument is legally sound. Is code-signing expressive in this case, or merely functional? Is it rather Apple's intent to communicate
by throwaway_yy2Di 11y ago
I'm sort of asking if EFF's argument is legally sound. Is code-signing expressive in this case, or merely functional? Is it rather Apple's intent to communicate endorsement that transforms code-signing into an expressive act, that when it's compelled, it's not expressive?
- hunter2_ 11y agoEven if they preface their action with "is it not our intent to endorse this, we're only doing it to make it function" they know damn well that all the other iPhones in the world, to which this speech isn't intended to be heard by but could potentially be heard by later, will infer/interpret it as an endorsement. Knowledge of an obvious likelihood of a particular inference despite claimed lack of intent is a form of intent.