<story><title>Why Forcing Apple to Write and Sign Code Violates the First Amendment</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/deep-dive-why-forcing-apple-write-and-sign-code-violates-first-amendment</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rayiner</author><text>Note that the focus of the EFF&amp;#x27;s argument is not on writing the code, but on expressive act of signing the code. Part I of its argument establishes that the government cannot compel a company to &lt;i&gt;convey a message&lt;/i&gt; it disagrees with. Part II argues that the act of conveying trust in code by signing it is still expression &lt;i&gt;even though it involves code&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;The EFF&amp;#x27;s framing has the advantage that it doesn&amp;#x27;t require the unworkable corollary that the government cannot dictate the content of code--and so operation of digital products--because &amp;quot;code is speech&amp;quot; in all circumstances.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>leereeves</author><text>The courts have already ruled that code is speech.&lt;p&gt;In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (the case about the DVD decryption tool DeCSS), the Court of Appeals stated:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Computer programs are not exempted from the category of First Amendment speech simply because their instructions require use of a computer.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; we join the other courts that have concluded that computer code, and computer programs constructed from code, can merit First Amendment protection, although the scope of such protection remains to be determined.&lt;p&gt;But First Amendment protections are not unlimited. The court ruled in that case (and others) that:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; the scope of protection for speech generally depends on whether the restriction is imposed because of the content of the speech.  Content-based restrictions are permissible only if they serve compelling state interests and do so by the least restrictive means available. A content-neutral restriction is permissible if it serves a substantial governmental interest, the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and the regulation is narrowly tailored, which &amp;quot;in this context requires . . . that the means chosen do not ‘burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government&amp;#x27;s legitimate interests.&amp;#x27;&amp;quot;</text></comment>
<story><title>Why Forcing Apple to Write and Sign Code Violates the First Amendment</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/deep-dive-why-forcing-apple-write-and-sign-code-violates-first-amendment</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rayiner</author><text>Note that the focus of the EFF&amp;#x27;s argument is not on writing the code, but on expressive act of signing the code. Part I of its argument establishes that the government cannot compel a company to &lt;i&gt;convey a message&lt;/i&gt; it disagrees with. Part II argues that the act of conveying trust in code by signing it is still expression &lt;i&gt;even though it involves code&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;The EFF&amp;#x27;s framing has the advantage that it doesn&amp;#x27;t require the unworkable corollary that the government cannot dictate the content of code--and so operation of digital products--because &amp;quot;code is speech&amp;quot; in all circumstances.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sigmar</author><text>It definitely focuses on the digital signature, but the EFF is also arguing the expression of Apple&amp;#x27;s beliefs within the operating system should be protected by the first amendment.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;The Order is unconstitutional because it compels  Apple  to  express  itself  in conflict with its stated beliefs. The Order forces Apple to say something it does not want to say and that it believes is “dangerous.” It then forces Apple to endorse code it does not  want  to endorse and thereby undermine the  trust  it has established in its digital signature. Each of these acts of  compelled  expression implicate the First  Amendment independently, but together they are even more harmful, hindering Apple’s ability to communicate its desired messages to its users, and to the world, into the future.</text></comment>