Forgot your password?
Cyhist Aug 27 1997 D
Document Actions
========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:14:26 -0500
Reply-To: nathanv9@IDT.NET
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Nathan Vincent <nathanv9@IDT.NET>
Subject: Re: Computer code as free speech
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
There actually is a precedent for computer code being free speech. We consider telephone conversations to be protected. However, the conversation is generally not in a analog format when it passes through the switching office. So, this is quite reasonable to say that computer code is protected as free speech.
In fact, if the Court had not ruled that it was such, it would have been setting an ominous precedent for other types of mediated communications.
Sincerely
Nathan Vincent
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: nathanv9@IDT.NET
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Nathan Vincent <nathanv9@IDT.NET>
Subject: Re: Computer code as free speech
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
There actually is a precedent for computer code being free speech. We consider telephone conversations to be protected. However, the conversation is generally not in a analog format when it passes through the switching office. So, this is quite reasonable to say that computer code is protected as free speech.
In fact, if the Court had not ruled that it was such, it would have been setting an ominous precedent for other types of mediated communications.
Sincerely
Nathan Vincent
______________________________________________________________________
