First off if she didn't like the code she could have quit. Laws that
say a company has to change their internal practices to make the
workers happy are idiotic. I can't sue because the men's bathroom
looks like crap and the wemans has a couch in it! If the program code
was meant for distribution it might be a little different but still
you have the choice not to get that code. The same as reading this
message a few lines in you could delete it! You chose to read this
far. The code is internal only and thus should require an internal
policy, not an outside law enforcement agency. As far as speach: If
it wasn't a form of speech she would have not gotten offended. She
was offended by the language in the source code and thus the speech.
get a job somewhere you feel comfortable, don't get a job and force
them to change things around you
---"Albert P. Franco, II"
From: mcw@atreus.ncs.ncsc.mil Subject: Is Hate Code Speech?
I acknowledge that you're welcome to use whatever variable names you want in code you write in private. BUt if you want to sell that
should be held to a standard of professionalism.
I think it is interesting that people are speaking of the program as something published for public consumption. Source code for commercial products rarely goes public and compilers do a rather nice job of obscuring human language variable names. Thus if there is any message or coherent agenda in the source code it is highly unlikely that it will be detectable in the executable, which is in fact the product delivered to the
code, it public.
Since the source code can only be read by insiders/employees then
tend to make it rather obvious that a form of speech was intended. I won't rehash the fact that non-relevant, human-language-significant variable names (as opposed to x, y, i, & j) are generally unacceptable
practice. I would make two points; that in todays programming world
code is protected by copyright law as are other forms of expression legally considered speech and source code is intended to document the
as such communicate ideas--in a broad sense this is a decent description of speech, a written mode of communicating ideas.
If someone finds offensive (hate) material in an obscured text (encrypted) intended for limited distribution, does the encryption make it less hateful? does the encryption make it any less a form of speech? does
fact that distribution is limited (assumming the "target" is in the distribution class) make it any less offensive? Is a crime less illegal if it is hidden? (Be careful, on this one...)
I think that offensive, probably hateful, speech was intended. So
step (or for others, a previous step) is to decide whether there are legal grounds for action. There are several laws which do, in fact, make
activities illegal. Most people in the US today agree that overt racism is wrong. Additionally, most "Americans" agree with laws that make it illegal to use/perform "hateful" speech.
These are very dangerous laws since they try to tread a very thin line between the freedom of thoughts (and to some degree, actions) and injury to others. When I first settled down to live in Spain and began to pay real attention to the local political scene I was astonished to find people defending the "right" of the radicals to throw stones and metal objects at those persons expressing ideas contrary to theirs (pro-peace, anti-terrorism demonstrations, 1995-6). Fortunately, we hear less and less of this non-sense that physical harm to another is a valid form of
expression or speech. But the base problem lingers, where do we draw
line of expression of ideas and intent to do harm. It has long been held that shouting "fire" in a crowded building is not a protected form of speech. Nor is libel (forgetting for now the problems of defining or proving it). And where do we draw the line (or does it even matter?) between public and private? And where do expression and action get separated? Thinking about doing something, or telling some one about
thoughts are not generally the same as actually doing it. But where does thought become expression become action?
This case doesn't solely revolve around the speech issue...IMO, it also revolves around the public/private issue, and whether or not the government can rightfully "enter" a "private" business place to regulate these matters. Recent history (80 years or so...) shows an increasing tendency for the government to "protect" workers by regulating the workplace. There are health & safety regs, minimum wage regs, etc. The "American"
has in general supported (and at times demanded) these external
the "private" employer/employee relationship. Legal precedent exists.
There are two problems here and historically the government has been called upon to keep a balance between "free speech" and "harmful speech" on
this does programming source process and the the next these personal the those populace limits on the
one hand and "Privacy" and "Protection" on the other hand. The debate now is with this case which way will (should?) the pendulum swing? More protection (reduction of privacy), more freedom (or hateful speech)...
Personally, I hope no one wins this eternal debate 100% since the results would be disastrous.
Just some thoughts...
Albert P. Franco, II encryption@apf2.com
== _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com