> Code is speech, though, and is protected by the first amendment: see Bernstein v. United States.

That is very much overstating the holding in the case [0], the most relevant part of which seems to be:

“encryption software, in its source code form and as employed by those in the field of cryptography, must be viewed as expressive for First Amendment purposes”

The ruling spends a key bit of analysis discussing the expressive function of source code in this field as distinct from the function of object code in controlling a computer.

A law compelling providing functionality which it is merely most convenient to comply with by creating source code as part of the process is not directing speech, any more than an law delivery of physical goods where the most convenient method of doing so involves interacting by speech with the person who physically holds them on your behalf is.

[0] text here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/176/176.F3d...

▲

arcfour 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> In the government's view, by targeting this unique functional aspect of source code, rather than the content of the ideas that may be expressed therein, the export regulations manage to skirt entirely the concerns of the First Amendment. This argument is flawed for at least two reasons...

I think you should read it a bit more closely. The court threw out the "functional/expressive" argument for source code, like I said in my original comment.

Secondly, what are you talking about that source code is the most "convenient" way to implement this? It's the literal, only possible way to present an interface to a user, ask them a question, and "signal" to other applications if the user is a minor or not. You're being completely nonsensical there. There's no other way to do that: someone must write some code. The bill specifically says "an API"!

▲

dragonwriter 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you should read a bit more closely, both to the decision, and to the post you are responding to (which addresses that), and to the context of what is being discussed in the thread (which is not "source code").

▲

arcfour 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I look forward to your blog post on how to implement "an API" without writing source code. It should be informative!

	▲	labcomputer 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Real Men use a magnetized needle.

▲

panny 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>A law compelling providing functionality

That's forced labor. I'm not required to write a line of code to please anyone. It's free software with no warranty. They have LLMs, let's see them build it. :)

▲

dragonwriter 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> > A law compelling providing functionality

> That's forced labor.

Well, that's a 13th Amendment issue not a 1st Amendment one, but, in any case, its not forced if it doesn't direct who does the work to create the functionality, only requires you to have the functionality provided if you are doing some other activity, it is more of an in-kind tax. [0] (Now, if you want to make an argument that when the activity it is conditioned on is expressive that that makes it a 1A violation as a content-based regulation when the condition is tied to the content of the expressive act, that is a better 1A argument, that might actually have some merit against many of the real uses of, say, age verification laws; but “if I am doing this activity, I must either create or acquire and use software that has a specified function” is not, in general, a 1A violation.)

[0] It's not really that other than metaphorically, either, any more than every regulation of any kind is an “in-kind tax”, but its far closer to that than “forced labor”.

▲

panny 21 hours ago | parent [-]

>its not forced if it doesn't direct who does the work

Good, because I'm not writing it, f\/ck them. Free software, no warranty. Use it if you want to. Otherwise, pound sand.

	▲	Dylan16807 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Good Don't you mean "bad"? Shouldn't you want it to be a violation of the constitution so it gets thrown out?