Seth Gordon wrote:
> I think the court's decision in the DeCSS case sucked, but I also think
> some of the folks on this list are misunderstanding *why* it sucked.
>
> Note that the legal distinction is expressive vs. functional, not
> human-readable vs. non-human-readable. If I say "kill" to my dog, and the
> dog follows my command, I cannot argue that my statement was protected by
> the First Amendment.
What a load of bunk. What an pile of crap. what unmitigated gall.
First ammendment Free Speech has, at its very heart, functional
speech in mind. not Briteny Spears waxing colloquially about love.
Not N'Sync pining for their groupies.
Thomas Paine wrote a document called Common Sense that was
nothing other than a demand to change the world. If you ever
bother to read the Declaration of Independence, you'll see
that New Hampshire's license plate "Live Free or Die" was
meant to be taken seriously, literally, and functionaly.
If I say "Men should not be ruled by kings" and the people
follow my command, that is functional speech. This is exactly
the kind of Functional Speech that the constitution intended
to protect.
calling a TEXT file WRITTEN in a computer LANGUAGE something
other than protectable speech is wordsmithing lawyerism.
Greg
