10 ms·

Bernstein v United States: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-cas

Bernstein v United States: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab... The debate is pretty settled that code and language should be protected by 1st amendment as free speech. Based on this precedent, we should not be cheering on the barring of the open source project and it’s developers. It is less clear if the execution and use of code should be free speech, and how to regulate code and language when the sole goal is illicit. Like anarchist cookbook, 3D printed guns. But to argue this, you will have to argue the sole goal of Tornado Cash is to aid in illicit behavior. There are many licit users of the protocol, like with Tor, who just want to seek privacy in their online communication. The issue comes down to whether sending and receiving private keys in an encrypted way over the internet should be protected or not.

verdverm 4y ago
The code was taken down by a private company, where your free speech does not apply. This is closer to the debate about content moderation on social media, because after all, github is more like a social media site than most realize. GitHub suspended the developer accounts of their own accord, likely to cover their ass. The Tornado Cash case is all about money laundering, the fact that there was code to automate the process is besides the point.
- randomran01234 4y ago
  GitHub can do whatever it likes as a private company. But there are laws that protect against chilling effects: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect The bigger problem is whether republishing the source code would make you a target of the sanctions. If a user republishes the source code on Ethereum, pirate bay, Gitlab, or another host then it is reasonable to assume their actions might be interpreted as “supporting the Tornado Cash project” which makes them a target of the sanctions. If a user modifies the code and republishes it probably will fall under same risks.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    Chilling effects laws have absolutely nothing to do with a company's voluntary decisions. That's a bizarre misunderstanding of their usage.
    - randomran01234 4y ago
      US sanctioning an Ethereum contract address and unrelated source control providers deleting user accounts and repositories is a good example of chilling effect in action. The individual developers are not in scope of the sanctions, and are not sanctioned entities. Not even the source code or its many individual repositories are directly sanctioned, but chilling effect is leading hosting services to erase it all as a precaution. https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/02/the-establishment-clause-and-the-chilling-effect/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/02/the-establishment-claus...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JohnHaugeland 4y ago
Remember when I said > or a misrepresentation of Marilyn Hall's decision that code is speech somehow means code is free speech Predictably, you referenced Marilyn Hall's decision that code is speech, and misrepresented it as support that code is free speech Literally exactly what I said you would do
- randomran01234 4y ago
  “free speech” = “protected by first amendment” Do you disagree with the widespread reporting on the outcome of this case? https://www.britannica.com/event/Bernstein-vs-the-US-Department-of-State#ref1202077 https://www.britannica.com/event/Bernstein-vs-the-US-Departm... > Bernstein v. the U.S. Department of State, landmark legal decision (1996) that set two important precedents in the field of digital technology. First, it ruled that U.S. government regulations that barred the export of encryption software were unconstitutionally restrictive; second, it declared that software source code can be a form of protected free speech. and https://casetext.com/case/bernstein-v-united-states-dept-of-justice https://casetext.com/case/bernstein-v-united-states-dept-of-... > The district court found that the Source Code was speech protected by the First Amendment, see Bernstein v. Department of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ("Bernstein I")

verdverm 4y ago

The code was taken down by a private company, where your free speech does not apply. This is closer to the debate about content moderation on social media, because after all, github is more like a social media site than most realize. GitHub suspended the developer accounts of their own accord, likely to cover their ass. The Tornado Cash case is all about money laundering, the fact that there was code to automate the process is besides the point.

randomran01234 4y ago
GitHub can do whatever it likes as a private company. But there are laws that protect against chilling effects: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect The bigger problem is whether republishing the source code would make you a target of the sanctions. If a user republishes the source code on Ethereum, pirate bay, Gitlab, or another host then it is reasonable to assume their actions might be interpreted as “supporting the Tornado Cash project” which makes them a target of the sanctions. If a user modifies the code and republishes it probably will fall under same risks.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  Chilling effects laws have absolutely nothing to do with a company's voluntary decisions. That's a bizarre misunderstanding of their usage.
  - randomran01234 4y ago
    US sanctioning an Ethereum contract address and unrelated source control providers deleting user accounts and repositories is a good example of chilling effect in action. The individual developers are not in scope of the sanctions, and are not sanctioned entities. Not even the source code or its many individual repositories are directly sanctioned, but chilling effect is leading hosting services to erase it all as a precaution. https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/02/the-establishment-clause-and-the-chilling-effect/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/02/the-establishment-claus...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JohnHaugeland 4y ago

Remember when I said > or a misrepresentation of Marilyn Hall's decision that code is speech somehow means code is free speech Predictably, you referenced Marilyn Hall's decision that code is speech, and misrepresented it as support that code is free speech Literally exactly what I said you would do

randomran01234 4y ago
“free speech” = “protected by first amendment” Do you disagree with the widespread reporting on the outcome of this case? https://www.britannica.com/event/Bernstein-vs-the-US-Department-of-State#ref1202077 https://www.britannica.com/event/Bernstein-vs-the-US-Departm... > Bernstein v. the U.S. Department of State, landmark legal decision (1996) that set two important precedents in the field of digital technology. First, it ruled that U.S. government regulations that barred the export of encryption software were unconstitutionally restrictive; second, it declared that software source code can be a form of protected free speech. and https://casetext.com/case/bernstein-v-united-states-dept-of-justice https://casetext.com/case/bernstein-v-united-states-dept-of-... > The district court found that the Source Code was speech protected by the First Amendment, see Bernstein v. Department of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ("Bernstein I")