5 ms·

Executing code isn't speech. Code is speech, and it's being allowed.

by colinmhayes 4y ago

staringback 4y ago
> Executing code isn't speech This is for the courts to decide I guess
- makoz 4y ago
  Really? If I execute a script that DDoS someone, presumably it should not be treated as "speech" as if it is a protected right. That's such a hilariously slippery slope since you can arguably do "anything" via executing code.
  - arthurcolle 4y ago
    Nah your example is more like performing a magic spell that prohibits others from speaking (DDoSing a public service site, as an example)
  - nradov 4y ago
    Denial of service attacks are explicitly illegal under the National Infrastructure Protection Act (NIIPA). I don't think a defendant has ever successfully challenged that law on First Amendment grounds, so the basic legal issues appear to be settled. Of course as a practical matter it can be difficult to prosecute DDoS attackers under that statute. Either they don't leave hard evidence, or they hide in countries which don't extradite.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  Courts have already decided this decades ago. At least as far back as Junger v. Daley [1], where the courts recognize a distinction between the expressive power of code as it is read by a person and the functional power of code when it is executed. While the expressive power of code creates a first amendment interest, the functional power of code may create a legitimate government interest in regulating that speech. The applicable legal test is from United States v. O'Brien [2], which ruled that even though burning a draft card may be expressive speech, the government's interest in draft cards not getting burnt allows them to forbid it without falling afoul of the first amendment. Junger v. Daley was cited as precedent in Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes [3], where the courts ruled that the functional power of DeCSS being illegal under the DMCA was sufficient to justify banning the distribution of the DeCSS source code. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Reimerdes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v...
vkou 4y ago
If speaking magic spells aloud caused flesh-eating demons to be summoned into our prime material plane, you wouldn't be allowed to speak magic spells, either. Klaatu, Verata, Necktie. Speech is speech, code can be spoken, and it can also be executed. The former is speech, the latter is action. Making API calls and flipping bits in a computer is what crosses the line from one to the other.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  > If speaking magic spells aloud caused flesh-eating demons to be summoned into our prime material plane, you wouldn't be allowed to speak magic spells, either. Yes? This is entirely reasonable if we analogize it to how fiction often approaches it. There might be some evil book, a necronomicon, or killing spells like in Harry Potter. In many fictional media, people are allowed to learn such spells, they're just not allowed to say the spells out loud. Reading and writing a spell is not the same as saying it and thereby executing it.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Okay that solves the First Amendment part, in your view (Citizens United is an example of ruling that transactions are speech, alongside its view that Corporations are afforded these protections) It doesn't solve Congress’ mandate to the Treasury where OFAC is used against entities that can appeal their own listing on the sanctions list. The smart contracts cannot currently do that.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Citizens united is unique because it is specifically about political actions which are the whole point of the first amendment clause about speech according to originalists. You've also mischaracterized the ruling, which was that spending money on political action is speech, not transactions.

Executing code isn't speech. Code is speech, and it's being allowed.

staringback 4y ago

> Executing code isn't speech This is for the courts to decide I guess

makoz 4y ago
Really? If I execute a script that DDoS someone, presumably it should not be treated as "speech" as if it is a protected right. That's such a hilariously slippery slope since you can arguably do "anything" via executing code.
- arthurcolle 4y ago
  Nah your example is more like performing a magic spell that prohibits others from speaking (DDoSing a public service site, as an example)
- nradov 4y ago
  Denial of service attacks are explicitly illegal under the National Infrastructure Protection Act (NIIPA). I don't think a defendant has ever successfully challenged that law on First Amendment grounds, so the basic legal issues appear to be settled. Of course as a practical matter it can be difficult to prosecute DDoS attackers under that statute. Either they don't leave hard evidence, or they hide in countries which don't extradite.
CrazyStat 4y ago
Courts have already decided this decades ago. At least as far back as Junger v. Daley [1], where the courts recognize a distinction between the expressive power of code as it is read by a person and the functional power of code when it is executed. While the expressive power of code creates a first amendment interest, the functional power of code may create a legitimate government interest in regulating that speech. The applicable legal test is from United States v. O'Brien [2], which ruled that even though burning a draft card may be expressive speech, the government's interest in draft cards not getting burnt allows them to forbid it without falling afoul of the first amendment. Junger v. Daley was cited as precedent in Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes [3], where the courts ruled that the functional power of DeCSS being illegal under the DMCA was sufficient to justify banning the distribution of the DeCSS source code. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Reimerdes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v...

vkou 4y ago

If speaking magic spells aloud caused flesh-eating demons to be summoned into our prime material plane, you wouldn't be allowed to speak magic spells, either. Klaatu, Verata, Necktie. Speech is speech, code can be spoken, and it can also be executed. The former is speech, the latter is action. Making API calls and flipping bits in a computer is what crosses the line from one to the other.

cercatrova 4y ago
> If speaking magic spells aloud caused flesh-eating demons to be summoned into our prime material plane, you wouldn't be allowed to speak magic spells, either. Yes? This is entirely reasonable if we analogize it to how fiction often approaches it. There might be some evil book, a necronomicon, or killing spells like in Harry Potter. In many fictional media, people are allowed to learn such spells, they're just not allowed to say the spells out loud. Reading and writing a spell is not the same as saying it and thereby executing it.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Okay that solves the First Amendment part, in your view (Citizens United is an example of ruling that transactions are speech, alongside its view that Corporations are afforded these protections) It doesn't solve Congress’ mandate to the Treasury where OFAC is used against entities that can appeal their own listing on the sanctions list. The smart contracts cannot currently do that.

colinmhayes 4y ago
Citizens united is unique because it is specifically about political actions which are the whole point of the first amendment clause about speech according to originalists. You've also mischaracterized the ruling, which was that spending money on political action is speech, not transactions.