> 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"!

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").