5 ms·

The amount of people replying "Code is free speech! You can't do this!" shows you about how much Twitter understands laws.

junofan 4y ago
That’s a pretty uncharitable interpretation.
- subjectsigma 4y ago
  > This is a law. > No, it is not. > That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation.
viraptor 4y ago
You can understand the law and still disagree with it for the same reason. Laws are not set in stone.
orangeoxidation 4y ago
Well... that's an old argument (the PGP book) and there's even support from the courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
- subjectsigma 4y ago
  Ok, I have to admit I learned about these cases in this thread and it threw me for a second. After reading them carefully I think my earlier statement is correct - there is no law which considers source code as free speech, and several legal frameworks which actively oppose the idea (ITAR, IP and copyright, etc). The idea seems pretty silly to me.
  - orangeoxidation 4y ago
    > several legal frameworks which actively oppose the idea (ITAR, IP and copyright, etc). The idea seems pretty silly to me. IP and copyright do apply to (otherwise free) speech. That's the whole point of them. The Supreme Court famously called copyright 'an engine of free expression'. Code is fundamentally ideas, explanations, instructions on how to calculate something, written down in rigid, formalized language. I don't see how it couldn't be a form of "speech", just like books, poems and music are. Speech is regulated of course, e.g. bomb-building instructions are illegal to publish in the US. Maybe you could make a case this crypto shuffling method is similar and spreading the know-how on how to do it should be forbidden, but that doesn't make it not speech.
    - subjectsigma 4y ago
      Let's step back for a second because we are losing focus. The original Twitter thread had people claiming that Tornado could not be removed from GitHub because it is protected constitutionally. My original comment was pointing out that this is not even remotely true. I think we can agree on that? Second, and this is just my opinion, but if I had to make two sets with the nouns 'book', 'poem', 'manual', 'hammer', 'jacket', and 'program', the partitions would be thus: book and poem would be together, with manual, hammer, jacket, and program in the other category. I'm having trouble describing it but in my mind the purpose of the first category is to communicate an idea (speech) whereas the purpose of the second is to enact a reality (tools). A program doesn't express something specifically human any more than a toroid, or the wave equation, or a chemical bond, but a poem about love certainly does.
seydor 4y ago
The law says that people are allowed to have opinions about the laws. Twitter is not some kind of law school test

junofan 4y ago

That’s a pretty uncharitable interpretation.

subjectsigma 4y ago
> This is a law. > No, it is not. > That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation.

viraptor 4y ago

You can understand the law and still disagree with it for the same reason. Laws are not set in stone.

orangeoxidation 4y ago

Well... that's an old argument (the PGP book) and there's even support from the courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

subjectsigma 4y ago
Ok, I have to admit I learned about these cases in this thread and it threw me for a second. After reading them carefully I think my earlier statement is correct - there is no law which considers source code as free speech, and several legal frameworks which actively oppose the idea (ITAR, IP and copyright, etc). The idea seems pretty silly to me.
- orangeoxidation 4y ago
  > several legal frameworks which actively oppose the idea (ITAR, IP and copyright, etc). The idea seems pretty silly to me. IP and copyright do apply to (otherwise free) speech. That's the whole point of them. The Supreme Court famously called copyright 'an engine of free expression'. Code is fundamentally ideas, explanations, instructions on how to calculate something, written down in rigid, formalized language. I don't see how it couldn't be a form of "speech", just like books, poems and music are. Speech is regulated of course, e.g. bomb-building instructions are illegal to publish in the US. Maybe you could make a case this crypto shuffling method is similar and spreading the know-how on how to do it should be forbidden, but that doesn't make it not speech.
  - subjectsigma 4y ago
    Let's step back for a second because we are losing focus. The original Twitter thread had people claiming that Tornado could not be removed from GitHub because it is protected constitutionally. My original comment was pointing out that this is not even remotely true. I think we can agree on that? Second, and this is just my opinion, but if I had to make two sets with the nouns 'book', 'poem', 'manual', 'hammer', 'jacket', and 'program', the partitions would be thus: book and poem would be together, with manual, hammer, jacket, and program in the other category. I'm having trouble describing it but in my mind the purpose of the first category is to communicate an idea (speech) whereas the purpose of the second is to enact a reality (tools). A program doesn't express something specifically human any more than a toroid, or the wave equation, or a chemical bond, but a poem about love certainly does.

seydor 4y ago

The law says that people are allowed to have opinions about the laws. Twitter is not some kind of law school test