[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.

At 11:46 am -0500 12/1/01, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>His refutation of it is that you can easily avoid 'breaking the law' by
>not distributing code. The law doesn't have to mold itself to your

I apologize for being slow but I don't understand how this is a 
successful refutation. The First Amendment protects speech from the 
desires and whims of minorities and majorities and the laws they 
might pass. I don't have to avoid "breaking the law"; laws have to 
avoid breaking the First Amendment. I remain mystified how the DMCA 
has not been held up to scrutiny based on conflict with the First 

I wonder if the lawyers and judges involved in these cases understand 
the cultural crossroads at which we stand poised. If all they do is 
offer their own muddled ideas about 'functional' speech while 
upholding an abomination like the DMCA, a whole segment of society 
(the people who actually make technology work) will hold such 
sophistry and all that flows from it in utter contempt. At this point 
I suspect the only thing that restrains such a reaction is the 
expectation that once these issues reach the Supreme Court we will 
get a very different result than we've seen so far.