4 ms·

I never understood the story about the book-printed PGP source code. Isn't source code protected speech under the first amendment anyway, regardless of the form

by p-e-w 3y ago

I never understood the story about the book-printed PGP source code. Isn't source code protected speech under the first amendment anyway, regardless of the form in which it is transmitted? All kinds of media receive first amendment protection, including things like monetary donations, corporate speech, art, etc. I've never heard of there being a requirement for the printed form. Did the interpretation of the first amendment change recently in this regard?

int_19h 3y ago
The idea was to make it blatantly clear that it's not a "munition".
- p-e-w 3y ago
  Why would that matter, if source code is protected speech anyway? And why is it more "clear" with a printed book vs. an emailed text file?
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    This was a time when we were happy when they managed to get congresspeople to understand that the internet is not like a truck, but more like a series of tubes. I think anchoring it to something old school like a book was a good call.
  - rfw300 3y ago
    I think if you’re looking for a logical answer from first principles, you won’t find one. It’s more that the legal system runs on precedent, and a book fits far more squarely in the fact patterns of previous First Amendment cases. Likely the source code case would end up with the same outcome, but it doesn’t hurt to make it more obvious.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Legally speaking, it didn't really matter. But symbolically, having the feds argue that a book constitutes "munitions" would be bad optics for them in a way that is more understandable to the average American, compared to more legal arcane arguments about software having 1A protections.
  - pests 3y ago
    > source code is protected speech That wasnt the case at the time.
femto 3y ago
The book was published in 1995 [1,2]. Free speech protection for source code under US law wasn't decided until 1996, in Bernstein v. United States [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Control_Act_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Co... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

by p-e-w 3y ago

int_19h 3y ago

The idea was to make it blatantly clear that it's not a "munition".

p-e-w 3y ago
Why would that matter, if source code is protected speech anyway? And why is it more "clear" with a printed book vs. an emailed text file?
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  This was a time when we were happy when they managed to get congresspeople to understand that the internet is not like a truck, but more like a series of tubes. I think anchoring it to something old school like a book was a good call.
- rfw300 3y ago
  I think if you’re looking for a logical answer from first principles, you won’t find one. It’s more that the legal system runs on precedent, and a book fits far more squarely in the fact patterns of previous First Amendment cases. Likely the source code case would end up with the same outcome, but it doesn’t hurt to make it more obvious.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Legally speaking, it didn't really matter. But symbolically, having the feds argue that a book constitutes "munitions" would be bad optics for them in a way that is more understandable to the average American, compared to more legal arcane arguments about software having 1A protections.
- pests 3y ago
  > source code is protected speech That wasnt the case at the time.

femto 3y ago

The book was published in 1995 [1,2]. Free speech protection for source code under US law wasn't decided until 1996, in Bernstein v. United States [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Control_Act_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann#Arms_Export_Co... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States