5 ms·

We all owe djb a great deal of gratitude for this hard-won freedom. This is one of the greatest victories in hacker history. I hope to never see this stricken f

We all owe djb a great deal of gratitude for this hard-won freedom. This is one of the greatest victories in hacker history. I hope to never see this stricken from the law of the land. Code is speech.

Lukineus 4y ago
> Code is speech. Not all code. From the linked article: > However, the court cautioned that not all software could be considered expressive, and thus not all source code would necessarily be protected.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
No, code will be deemed whatever fits the idealogy of the judiciary. Legal reasoning is secondary except for show nowadays given the partisan majority of the supreme court. Specious and convenient reasoning abound.
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  The Myth of the Rule of Law - John Hasnas
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    Thank for the interesting book suggestion. You made my day.
JasonFruit 4y ago
Unfortunately, it's not the law of the land --- it's a judicial opinion, written in water and subject to change without notice. (Which is how judicial opinion should be; this is just a good opinion that ought to be codified by the legislature.)
- bombcar 4y ago
  Too much of US law is actually judicial opinion - there should be some requirement that if a law is overturned/interpreted, that the legislature has to fix the original law (example: the Affordable Care act still insists it's not a tax even though it was ruled a tax).
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > Too much of US law is actually judicial opinion This is by 'design': * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Not sure if it's possible to convert things: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
    - Teever 4y ago
      IANAL but in theory you don't have to convert the legal system to civil law to do away with the excess reliance on legal precedent in our society. If we had a healthy legislative system then things could be better codified in law that was passed by elected representatives. If we had a healthy legislative system.
      - splintercell 4y ago
        I feel that this whole attitude is coming from the latest Roe V Wade issue, but remember all Roe v Wade decision would be to send the power to regulate the issue of abortion back to the states. If there is a legislative will to do something at federal level, then in an alternate system of civil law too there wouldn't be a statute allowing abortion. In fact, without Supreme Court's Roe v Wade's 1970s decision, abortion would be pretty much illegal in the US (as it was, right before the 1970s decision).
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      There is no way that the US could convert to civil law. The country was founded on the common law of Britain. Widespread adoption of civil law would require the rewriting of literally all of the founding documents ... in a country where making even a tiny change to an amendment is forever a bridge to far. It would be a revolution, a new country.
mkovach 4y ago
We also owe a bit to Peter Junger (https://web.archive.org/web/20061012211535/http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/ https://web.archive.org/web/20061012211535/http://samsara.la...). He did quite a bit of work (and had a similar lawsuit) that code was speech. He use to attend the Linux Users Groups meeting I was part of. Amazing person and really friggin' smart. Also, he was pretty good with Tex.
Zamicol 4y ago
And Phil Zimmermann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Control_Act_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Co...
- ur-whale 4y ago
  Interesting to note that both he and Bernstein no longer live on US soil.
- zeruch 4y ago
  Absolutely, we owe Zimmerman.

Lukineus 4y ago

> Code is speech. Not all code. From the linked article: > However, the court cautioned that not all software could be considered expressive, and thus not all source code would necessarily be protected.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

No, code will be deemed whatever fits the idealogy of the judiciary. Legal reasoning is secondary except for show nowadays given the partisan majority of the supreme court. Specious and convenient reasoning abound.

CameronNemo 4y ago
The Myth of the Rule of Law - John Hasnas
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Thank for the interesting book suggestion. You made my day.

JasonFruit 4y ago

Unfortunately, it's not the law of the land --- it's a judicial opinion, written in water and subject to change without notice. (Which is how judicial opinion should be; this is just a good opinion that ought to be codified by the legislature.)

bombcar 4y ago
Too much of US law is actually judicial opinion - there should be some requirement that if a law is overturned/interpreted, that the legislature has to fix the original law (example: the Affordable Care act still insists it's not a tax even though it was ruled a tax).
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Too much of US law is actually judicial opinion This is by 'design': * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Not sure if it's possible to convert things: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
  - Teever 4y ago
    IANAL but in theory you don't have to convert the legal system to civil law to do away with the excess reliance on legal precedent in our society. If we had a healthy legislative system then things could be better codified in law that was passed by elected representatives. If we had a healthy legislative system.
    - splintercell 4y ago
      I feel that this whole attitude is coming from the latest Roe V Wade issue, but remember all Roe v Wade decision would be to send the power to regulate the issue of abortion back to the states. If there is a legislative will to do something at federal level, then in an alternate system of civil law too there wouldn't be a statute allowing abortion. In fact, without Supreme Court's Roe v Wade's 1970s decision, abortion would be pretty much illegal in the US (as it was, right before the 1970s decision).
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    There is no way that the US could convert to civil law. The country was founded on the common law of Britain. Widespread adoption of civil law would require the rewriting of literally all of the founding documents ... in a country where making even a tiny change to an amendment is forever a bridge to far. It would be a revolution, a new country.

mkovach 4y ago

We also owe a bit to Peter Junger (https://web.archive.org/web/20061012211535/http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/ https://web.archive.org/web/20061012211535/http://samsara.la...). He did quite a bit of work (and had a similar lawsuit) that code was speech. He use to attend the Linux Users Groups meeting I was part of. Amazing person and really friggin' smart. Also, he was pretty good with Tex.

Zamicol 4y ago

And Phil Zimmermann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Control_Act_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Co...

ur-whale 4y ago
Interesting to note that both he and Bernstein no longer live on US soil.
zeruch 4y ago
Absolutely, we owe Zimmerman.