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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

The courts don't realize the slippery slope they are on. By making 
a distinction between expressive and functional speech then ANY 
expression that is precise and unambiguous becomes functional 
under the courts definition and subject to censorship.  The counter 
argument that "well we don't ban vague poetry or literature" 
demonstrates that such censorship is not content neutral and 
directed against those who can and do express themselves 
precisely.

BTW What's more, taking the logic in the Felton case, Kaplan 
should have dismissed the 2600 suit because it was premature and 
spectulative.

To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
From:           	daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
Date sent:      	1 Dec 2001 06:38:30 GMT
Organization:   	University of California, Berkeley
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Scott A Crosby  wrote:
> [...]
> >What Shamos claims is that it is wrong to distribute things with
> >functional aspects. Shamos says that instead, one should just make
> >sure to distribute it as something that DOESN"T have functional
> >aspects.
> [...]
> 
> In my declaration, I argue that oftentimes, code is a useful form of
> communication precisely because it is functional: it is useful because
> it is precise & unambiguous, and it is precise & unambiguous because
> of its functional nature.  (Computer tolerate no ambiguity, so writing
> in code is an effective way to avoid ambiguity.)