7 ms·

The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch), but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to

• polynomial 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on this?
  • dtgriscom 4y ago
    Github doesn't have to publish or host anything they don't want to, and they may decide not to for many reasons (business, appearances, phase of the moon, etc).
    • encryptluks2 4y ago
      I mean if they don't want to because of someone's race then that is against the law. Same with religion. So start a religion that incorporates these ideals.
      • Dalewyn 4y ago
        IANAL, but I recall a religion needs to have existed before so-and-so date (I don't recall exactly) to qualify as a religious exception. Meaning your Swimming Lasagna Monster religion you created yesterday doesn't qualify.
        • ipaddr 4y ago
          The scientology example tells us the opposite.
    • drak0n1c 4y ago
      Unless one of those reasons is persistent government requests/pressure on Microsoft/Github. Then it's a convenient way around first amendment protections.
      • blitzar 4y ago
        Is a subpoena, in full compliance with the law, considered to be persistent government requests.
  • yellow_lead 4y ago
    GitHub doesn't have to host anything it doesn't want, regardless of free speech
    • dekhn 4y ago
      he said it would be interesting if github chose to un-host it but then he'd just move it to a university server.
  • yarg 4y ago
    The First Amendment rights of corporations is at play here. > The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch) There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related). It's murky, and subject to government overreach. > but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to publish on Github servers. The first constrains the government, it in no way constrains private entities. In fact (given the corporate personhood), to require that a private entity publish content from a third party would be compelled speech, and a breach of the entity's first amendment rights.
    • jayparth 4y ago
      What I took it as was “the first protects Green’s right to republish on GitHub [from government censorship].” Of course the first does not compel GitHub to allow him to do anything on their servers, but it does protect what both parties consented to do from government censorship.
    • retcore 4y ago
      > There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I don't believe it's murky at all, but defined deliberately in fuzzy terms in a number of important ways, one of which is the avoidance of precipitation of criminality. Criminality defined as that which is harmful to society. Although it may sound weak, compared to the presumed unfettered principles invoked above, should one or other of a separating couple used Tornado Cash to rinse common property funds, something that isn't drug dealing or terrorism anyhow, nevertheless it's laundering and using a device to commit a crime without which device that crime may not be possible. Federal proceedings against Tornado Cash have given the unlawful enterprise unprecedented profile and it follows that the motivation for anyone who strives for continuance of the same or similar, in light of the reasons for federal action, could be construed as being potential criminal too. Frankly I am stunned in the era that recognizes hate speech, that the automatic right to unfiltered and inconsequential freedom of speech is claimed so crudely, so reflexively and on such narrow and unexplained grounds..
  • nominusllc 4y ago
    If Github consents to storing it on those grounds, they have that right, in my unlicensed opinion.
• 4ad 4y ago
  And?
  • yarg 4y ago
    >> The First Amendment protects both GitHub’s right to host that code, and Professor Green’s right to publish (here republish) it on GitHub The first part's maybe true, the second part is bullshit.
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      Exactly. If they wanted to challenge the government, they could have self hosted. This is an activist play at Microsoft. Nothing more, nothing less.
      • lovingCranberry 4y ago
        "Challenging the government" doesn't make sense there, because the government never ordered anyone to take down the source code. Microsoft just did some risk management and decided that it's not worth it to keep their own users data. I find it quite interesting that someone puts Github's management in a difficult situation. Are they gonna terminate Prof Green's account too? Are they gonna hunt down every copy of the source code on Github? Are they giving high-profile users a special treatment? Looking forward to how this plays out.
        • fabianhjr 4y ago
          Also wondering to what extend co-pilot has this particular code embedded.
        • sgjohnson 4y ago
          It’s an enormous liability concern for them. Even if some activist executive would allow it, Microsoft’s lawyers would absolutely not. And the shareholders also wouldn’t. Don’t forget that the purpose of a business is to create shareholder value (as defined by the shareholders themselves), and I highly doubt that the majority of Microsoft’s shareholders would see any value in this. Just liability. Conclusion - not worth it. > Are they gonna terminate Prof Green's account too? Probably not. > Are they gonna hunt down every copy of the source code on Github? Probably.
• Brian_K_White 4y ago
  It protects the right to publish, "on github", or by any other means, and saying that in no way says "compels github to perform a service against their will" Why do some people jump to interpret things that way? There's something kind of pathetic at the heart of that.
  • yarg 4y ago
    • snowwrestler 4y ago
      This is an issue of reading comprehension. The quoted sentence says that GitHub and Green each separately have Constitutional rights. It does not imply a compulsory relationship between Green and GitHub. Green has a Constitutional right to publish anywhere, and GitHub is somewhere, so he has a Constitutional right to publish on GitHub. That does not mean the Constitution compels GitHub, it simply means the Constitution does not restrict Green.
      • yarg 4y ago
        > so he has a Constitutional right to publish on GitHub. No he doesn't, he's merely allowed to do what Github lets him do. Anyway, this is getting rather silly, so I'll leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ.
        • snowwrestler 4y ago
          Your statement does not disagree with my statement. Green’s rights do not create a duty on GitHub. You’re struggling with basic concepts. Constitutional rights in general do not compel private actions; they restrict government powers.
          • yarg 4y ago
            A right from one perspective is a constraint from another. If I have the right to life, there is a constraint prohibiting others from taking it from me. Likewise, if I have the right to publish on Github, then Github does not have the right to stop me. Seems to me that you're the one struggling with basic comprehension.
• soulofmischief 4y ago
  Bad phrasing. The "right" is that of generally being able to seek publishing, not publishing with any one specific publisher.
  • yarg 4y ago
    Perhaps - but in a complaint regarding legal rights, phrasing is very fucking important.
    • soulofmischief 4y ago
      If you sent an email to the editor, they might agree with you.
• indymike 4y ago
  Every time someone points out that freedom of speech/press/expression doesn't apply to expression in a private forum they are correct. The owner of the forum has rights... but, there is a very important piece of the story this misses: Is government the reason GitHub is removing the repo? If so, then this is exactly an abridgment of rights, and GitHub would be an accomplice to the government is that violation. Government asking for someone's rights to be violiated, no matter how politely they do so, is still a violation of rights.
  • patrickthebold 4y ago
    The interesting thing is I doubt the government explicitly contacted Github, it seems there's a somewhat vague "Tornado cash is sanctioned". You could imagine that Github's lawyers aren't going to take any risk. But the government could argue that Github is overreacting.
    • salawat 4y ago
      This is how the white collar world actually works. It's rife with communication characterized by non-written, non-spoken, and completely indirect forms of command giving such that it creates a plausibly deniable link through which the originator of a mandate can state they never told someone to do something, making it seem as if the agent acted entirely of their own volition, regardless of the fact they were constrained by the structure of incentives/risks put in place by the person in a position of higher authority. Absolutely nobody will admit to the dynamic and will actively avoid any attempt at on paper recognition of it, as to do so will completely destroy/dismantle the PD chain. In short, the government is effectively accountabilty laundering in order to for keep out money launderers.
      • schlauerfox 4y ago
        It's because being listed is one of the things that has strict liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability So you're guilty if you do it, regardless of your intent or knowledge with no legal excuse or defense. That's a VERY dangerous place to be in.
• mola 4y ago
  Granted that github sole reason for not hosting because is government overreach (first part) then in a world where github would allow publishing, then it is within Prof. Green rights to publish it. Is how I read it.