From: Kragen Sitaker (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 14:07:58 PDT
Antoun Nabhan writes:
> So when you write
> code, you're not really describing action to other, morally culpable
> agents, you're actually acting. The computer is just a long, strong arm.
> IANAL, but I play one on the Net,
I agree that this is the case in some cases, but I don't think it's
First, let me point out that the moral culpability of those to whom you
speak is not a defense for "speech as action". If you tell ten people
white people are devils that must die, they may go out and kill a bunch
of white people, although they should know better. If they do, you are
still culpable, even though they should have known better.
IMHO, a program to do X is morally equivalent to a set of written
English instructions for doing X. If someone wants to do X, they can
follow the written instructions; if following the written instructions
does X, the person guilty of doing X is the person who made the
decision to follow the instructions, not the person who wrote the
instructions. This is why, for example, bomb recipes are protected
Likewise, I think exploit scripts are and should be protected speech:
they explain how to do a particular thing which is usually a crime.
On the other hand, if you claim your instructions do X (say, "build a
bomb") and they actually do Y (say, "blow you up"), you are culpable
--- not the person who made the decision to follow the instructions. I
don't think that rests on the "speech as action" doctrine.
I don't think the act of instructing a computer to run a program is, in
itself, an act of speech. It's an act of thought. Publishing a
program for other people to read and possibly run is an act of speech.
-- <firstname.lastname@example.org> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/> Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we ourselves possess. -- Gandalf the Grey [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 14:10:20 PDT