Site Meter

Stanford Law Review Online: Software Speech

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Mike B says:

    Why not treat computers and software, unless clearly active content (like video games), as the medium rather than the message? The telephone isn’t speech; what it carries is. Ditto TV and many other media. Yes, I know McCluhan: the medium is the message. But that’s not really true from a technical standpoint. The word processor example: the document is the message; the program used to create it is the medium. The web page (which these days almost certainly includes active content) is the message; the browser is the medium. The search engine is the medium; the RESULTS of the search are the message. Etc. The message is the “speech” you’re trying to protect. Then … isn’t there a difference in protection between commercial and other speech (next round I’m sure).

  2. It would have been interesting if Andrew had commented on the impact of calling software (pure,quasi,so-so) speech, and patent law. If software is speech, and I have patented that software, I can deny you the ability to use that software. Does that mean I have denied your freedom of speech for that software?

  3. Alpheus says:

    A couple of thoughts that ought to be considered, when trying to decide whether or not software is speech:

    First, as someone who has been involved in the Linux community for years, I can attest that people *do* choose to use operating systems, word processors, and even search engines, as political statements, usually as a statement that proprietary software is harmful. Thus, these things are more than just a medium, but are a means for pursuing political pursuits.

    Second, the code itself is potentially free speech. A quote from “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs” illustrates this: “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” Thus, computer programs are literally documents for humans to read–to explain how to calculate things. If this shouldn’t qualify for free speech, then what should?