> Content-based restrictions are permissible only if they serve compelling state interests and do so by the least restrictive means available. To me, the EFF's

> Content-based restrictions are permissible only if they serve compelling state interests and do so by the least restrictive means available. To me, the EFF's argument is more perpendicular to this. They're not arguing about restriction / suppression of free speech, but rather noting that requiring Apple to create, disseminate, and sign an iOS version amounts to compelling speech. From looking at case law (ianal), this looks murky. Commercial speech (which this would be) has a history of being subject to a different interpretation of free speech than individual. The obvious example is cigarettes: the government compels private cigarette companies to include warnings on their product packaging for the good of the state. The twist here is the all/nothing nature of certain encryption questions. Ultimately, we're going to get back to the Clipper Chip, Round 2 and whether private companies have the right to create a system even the government can't breach.