4 ms·
I like it too, but I'd also challenge even this: > This is a reasonable enough interpretation of that law, even with the US First Amendment. I don't think it'
by akersten 5y ago
I like it too, but I'd also challenge even this:
> This is a reasonable enough interpretation of that law, even with the US First Amendment.
I don't think it's reasonable at all to call computer code anything other than speech. In fact, just like you say, you can write it in a book. I'd go one step further and say, "if you can encode it in a book, it's speech and therefore protected expression, and cannot be banned." (I am aware that is more permissive than current US laws - I think illegal numbers is a thoroughly Wrong and unconstitutional concept).
- new_realist 5y agoThat simplistic and fundamentalist interpretation is incompatible with copyright, publication of trade secrets, classified information, invasion of privacy (nude pics), distribution of pedophilia materials, etc.
- akersten 5y agoI would rephrase your first part as: copyright and government protection of trade secrets is incompatible with a principled (n.b.: not "simplistic") view of freedom of expression. As far as the other acts that rode along on the coattails of your comment: there's no reason the production of that material couldn't remain illegal in this hypothetical.
- a1369209993 5y ago> That [...] interpretation is incompatible with [infringments against free speech]. Yes. Yes it is. That's the point.
- mrslave 5y agoLibertarian reasoning circa 2005: all digital files are just numbers; you can't patent mathematics; therefore download all the movies illegally!
- djbebs 5y agoHave you considered the possibility that the urge to censor is the issue there?
- thescriptkiddie 5y agoHave you considered that the enforcement of copyright, trade secrets, and state secrets are incompatible with freedom of speech?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- retrac 5y agoYes, and I think this is more obvious today, but in the early 1990s printing it on paper proved the point very clearly. "Software" still has a certain mystique about it even today for non-tech people. But it's just something you could print on paper and type back in.
- alisonkisk 5y agoDo you think the US military doesn't understand the concept of secret papers?
- dredmorbius 5y agoThere's a history of restrictions over specific information, including specific numbers and quantities, or descriptions of items. We know most of them through exception --- casses in which restrictions were ultimately overcome (the 1979 publication of schematics for a hydrogen bomb by Progressive being a notable instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/03/10/magazine-barred-from-publishing-h-bomb-article/749417b2-837e-496b-a4c1-36dff94e4652/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/03/10/m...) Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute. There are considerations under which speech can be and is restricted. Those boundaries shift with time, and specific decisions may later be found inspired or wanting. It's a genuinely complex domain, and simply declaring "free speech" is nowhere near sufficient in addressing the questions raised.