FreeSWAN & US export controls

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:

> In the most recent ruling, Universal v. Remerdez/Eric Corley 2600.com 
> (00-9185), http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-cad.htm , the US Court of 
> Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to overturn an injunction 
> against the posting of DeCSS on the Internet. The Court held that 
> software was speech, but did not enjoy the level of First Amendment 
> protection accorded to pure speech because it is functional with 
> little human intervention.

That's where 'press' comes into play. The 1st provides two protections.
The first is to have an opinion and to express it, 'speech'. The second is
'press' which guarantees the right to share with other humans. Speech that
is not shared, after all, is no better than speech not uttered. Now this
explicitly protects the hardware and 'non-human' mechanisms that humans
use to distribute their speech. The courts will eventually find that the
sharing of speech, irrespective of mechanism, is protected. To deny an
individual a mechanism to share their speech is in fact a violation of
their speech. In addition the first does NOT draw ANY distinctions about
what sorts of speech are or are not protected, it simply says 'speech' is 
protected.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

             Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.

                                             Bumper Sticker

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------