There's so much room for interpretation in there. I share my laptop with the kids, so not personal. My other computer is a tower / htpc / 19" / any other form factor than a desktop. It can only connect to a WLAN (which need not have a gateway to the Internet, who knows). It will not download and run applications by itself unless hacked, certainly not any binaries (lol gentoo) because the user-writable filesystems are noexec.

"Runs an operating system" is about the only one that has its box ticked >99% of the time.

I don’t think they’re going to spend any resources on going after you because:

* your project might not even qualify under the text of the law

* even if it did, the number of children using it to access social media is likely zero

There was no "PGP decision." You're making that up.

If you could stop doing that thing, it isn't an impossibility under lex non cogit ad impossibilia.

Meta is a company. I am an individual.

Alright, then let me rephrase:

> If "free speech" was a valid defense to any legal compliance laws that affect software, then any software company would raise this defense this rather than comply.

The person you replied to is using "could"/"could not" to mean "would comply with the law"/"would not comply with the law"

Nobody here is saying that anyone is going to swoop in and physically prevent this software from being distributed on the internet.

> Then the problem the legislators sought to solve just got a lot worse, while calling a lot of attention to how little power they actually have to control decentralized FOSS software projects.

The legislators who passed this don't give a shit about that. Their intended target of this legislation is mainstream devices and mainstream users.

Those are valid opinions. However, I also see a lot of bluster here about going to prison for their beliefs from people who wouldn't last a minute behind bars.

> Anyone should be free to research, discuss, and try to understand the law for themselves. Lawyers do not own the law.

This isn't mere research and discussion; it's suggesting an outcome (i.e., "you're safe[r]"). That crosses a line into advice.

> But if actually pulled into a courtroom, sure, get a lawyer.

By the time you get pulled into a courtroom, it is often far too late. The time to talk to an attorney is well before that, when you’re contemplating action. That is the main point I’ve been trying to make, and it seems you just don’t want to pay heed.

Yes, you've said multiple times that you're not afraid of the consequences, but you'll forgive me if I don't believe you. History is replete with people who regretted their actions once prosecutorial actions were commenced and punishments meted out. Defending oneself is expensive, and convictions impact not just the guilty but also their career and family.

Ultimately, it's your life and you have to live with the decisions you make. (And, possibly, your family, should you have one.) Your bluster and actions may not harm you in this specific instance because you’re involved with a project too small to attract a prosecutor’s attention, but it doesn’t make my caution any less valid. It may not persuade you, personally, but hopefully others who read this will get the message.

> Dude everybody here is smart enough not to rely on internet comments for their legal advice

If only that were true. I've seen people take the law into their own hands far too often, among other bad decisions based on Internet conversations.

I'm going to repeat this exhortation every time I see someone armchair lawyering.

I'll bite. His statements in this very forum could he used against him as evidence of intent to violate the law, should he be prosecuted someday.

There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent.

No one is asking me to add code to stagex right now, so there is no actual legal situation I am in.

I am not even an owner of the project, I founded the project, but am now just one of many volunteer contributors. Are they going to mandate wikipedia volunteers alter pages to state guidelines as well?

We must not be afraid of stuff like this. It is blatant overreach I do not expect would stand legal challenge.

I am simply saying I would refuse to write code I do not want to write. I am honestly surprised people think this is such a scary thing to say.

The point of saying this publicly is not in order to harm or help my own defense of a court order from another state I will probably get.

It is to signal to legislators that if they decide to take this fight, it will be done with people not afraid to do it all in public to establish public trust. It is not even okay that people -think- it is possible for our FOSS projects to be altered or backdoored by any random state officials.

What next, asking Torvalds to add KYC to the kernel?

Pretending like technical limitations protect him from being in violation of the law like another commentator made an analogy to handcuffing yourself to property you were told to leave?

His comments on this thread itself which establish intent to not comply with the law?

All power to him for going with his morals but he’s making unforced errors and should instead be contacting one of the several activist legal firms that would at least give him advice on how to protect himself and not follow through with this law if not outright pro bono legal defense.

I’m not a lawyer and even I know that argument would never hold up given the plethora of other laws that have been implemented through software. Not to mention copyright and patent claims too.

That argument has been going on for decades, and has had few victories in the court system. The DMCA, which prohibits trafficking in anticircumvention devices, even though there's a lot of code in them, is still alive and well.

There is pretty solid case law for the constitutionality of a variety of compliance requirements. If you can comply by being silent then they aren't really compelling you to do say anything.

Is is also clear that there are major deficits in our Constitution but that the amendment process has failed to survive a modern world.

Any of our original forefathers would recognize today's American federal government as an overreach from their indended form of government.

The only reason we aren't seeing a Boston Tea Party 2.0 over the recent string of coordinated assaults against our inalienable human rights is because surveillance capitalism is already coarsely achieving its goals of suppressing any civic participation which exists between the spectrum of ineffective political protest to the most desperate, radical action.

Some of those among us simply cannot drink this koolaid. A quote from MLK, Jr:

  I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

I think the issue here is that while the people here are aware of the history and "utility" of laws like the one above, most people aren't and right now "regulate social media, the internet, and what my kid does with computers" is having quite a day. Inevitably all of this is framed in terms of keeping children safe, whereas piracy is at most a misdemeanor of very little consequence.

Although I have no doubt that courts would ultimately side with you, the chance of becoming even a transient focus of a frustrated AG or congressperson looking to pin blame on "Out of touch and recalcitrant techies, the very ones who created this problem," is chilling. It's meant to be chilling, but it often works because he reality of what you'd go through on the way to eventual victory isn't trivial. Maybe you're willing to go through the courts (public opinion and otherwise), but if so the first thing any attorney you employ will beg you to do is stop talking the way you are.

tl;dr I think taking a stand is great, I support that, I think doing it now is a good idea. I don't think you should talk about it in public though, especially not in a literal, "Come and get me" way.

You and me both.