Code=Speech v. Code=Actions

[R. Andrew Lamonica]

We all know that The United States Bill of Rights grants freedom of speech to its citizens.  Anyone who has ever taken a civil (or constitutional) law class knows that there are some restrictions on that right.  At the core of these restrictions is the idea that some speech is not just speech but also action.  The most historic example is that you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because that is an action with possibly dire consequences.  Additionally, a mob boss telling his henchman to kill someone is also action not just speech. Today, in a world so dependent on computers and a new type of speech supported action is getting attention.  The speech is code and the action is the compiling and running of it.  It is easy for computer people to see the difference because we are familiar with the inner workings of this system.  For the rest of the world, however, the distinction is not so clear.  For example, someone making a program that deletes all the files on your computer and distributing in on the web under a link titled â€Ã...“run thisâ€Ã, is clearly a jerk and in the eyes of many should be held responsible for any damage caused.  To make things more complicated, it is possible to write code that facilitates breaking the law and make it available to law breakers everywhere.  A person who does that may also be a jerk, but many people would argue that the writer is akin to the scientists who developed plastic explosives.  Some of you may suspect that this paragraph is leading up to a discussion of file sharing programs.  I, however, would like to encourage a discussion on software in general. In particular I just read a brief concerning the DeCSS case that talked about the definition of software and how it relates to speech.

http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2001/0126-speech.html

[Elizabeth Weber]

Hmmm, very interesting.  I'm going to open with some nit-picky house cleaning, mostly because I'm too far away to get in a good rub in person:  "code==speech v code==actions" would be more appropriate and "code==speech|code==actions" even moreso.  And I like how you read the brief but botched the spelling :p...

I particularly like this topic because at first I was going to write it off as non-existant.  Code in my mind is no different than any other patentable invention.  It's textually documented representation is intellectual property and therefore copyrightable, but it's realization is just as concrete as the building of a car or a bomb.  Which makes this question similar to that which asks if a chemist who develops a deadly poison and publishes the formula or a physicist who develops a bomb is responsible for the reprocussions of someone else manufacturing and using it.  Which leads me to "code==instructions|design|blueprint".

And I'm really not seeing the "expression" argument here.  If a car manufacturer puts spiked metal fins on a car for design reasons, and then those metal fins cause injuries, the car manufacturer would be held liable.

Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't have time to read the entire brief to see what the argument is and therefore see how it affects my opinion.  Though I am interested in your thoughts, Andrew (as I noticed you didn't express them :p), and the thoughts of others.

On a side note, I did get far enough into the brief to see this

All computer code is executable.

May I use that in my defense the next time I turn in a homework assignment that gets a 0 because it supposedly "didn't compile" :)

[Jerry]

Liz,

You're right, the person should have said:
"All syntactically correct computer code is executable"

[Stiffler]

Weeeell ...... Maybe ..... a person could be .... um ...... weeeell ..... responsible (lean back in chair) .... if something ..... ummm .... goes wrong, but ...... it is ..... aaaaa ..... easy to ....... make mistakes.

- Andy Kep... I mean ..... um ..... Stiffler