From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 00:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Hate Code Speech? YES
Message-ID: <199809010722.JAA14753@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


First off if she didn't like the code she could have quit.  Laws that
say a company has to change their internal practices to make the
workers happy are idiotic.  I can't sue because the men's bathroom
looks like crap and the wemans has a couch in it!  If the program code
was meant for distribution it might be a little different but still
you have the choice not to get that code.  The same as reading this
message a few lines in you could delete it!  You chose to read this
far.  The code is internal only and thus should require an internal
policy, not an outside law enforcement agency.  As far as speach: If
it wasn't a form of speech she would have not gotten offended.  She
was offended by the language in the source code and thus the speech.
get a job somewhere you feel comfortable, don't get a job and force
them to change things around you


---"Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2@apf2.com> wrote:
>
> >From: mcw@atreus.ncs.ncsc.mil
> >Subject: Is Hate Code Speech?
> >
> 
> 
> >I acknowledge that you're welcome to use whatever variable names you
> >want in code you write in private. BUt if you want to sell that
code, it
> >should be held to a standard of professionalism.
> >
> 
> I think it is interesting that people are speaking of  the program as
> something published for public consumption. Source code for commercial
> products rarely goes public and compilers do a rather nice job of
obscuring
> human language variable names. Thus if there is any message or
coherent
> agenda in the source code it is highly unlikely that it will be
detectable
> in the executable, which is in fact the product delivered to the
public.
> 
> Since the source code can only be read by insiders/employees then
this does
> tend to make it rather obvious that a form of speech was intended. I
won't
> rehash the fact that non-relevant, human-language-significant variable
> names (as opposed to x, y, i, & j) are generally unacceptable
programming
> practice. I would make two points; that in todays programming world
source
> code is protected by copyright law as are other forms of expression
legally
> considered speech and source code is intended to document the
process and
> as such communicate ideas--in a broad sense this is a decent
description of
> speech, a written mode of communicating ideas. 
> 
> If someone finds offensive (hate) material in an obscured text
(encrypted)
> intended for limited distribution, does the encryption make it less
> hateful? does the encryption make it any less a form of speech? does
the
> fact that distribution is limited (assumming the "target" is in the
> distribution class) make it any less offensive? Is a crime less
illegal if
> it is hidden? (Be careful, on this one...)
> 
> I think that offensive, probably hateful, speech was intended. So
the next
> step (or for others, a previous step) is to decide whether there are
legal
> grounds for action. There are several laws which do, in fact, make
these
> activities illegal. Most people in the US today agree that overt
racism is
> wrong. Additionally, most "Americans" agree with laws that make it
illegal
> to use/perform "hateful" speech. 
> 
> These are very dangerous laws since they try to tread a very thin line
> between the freedom of thoughts (and to some degree, actions) and
injury to
> others. When I first settled down to live in Spain and began to pay
real
> attention to the local political scene I was astonished to find people
> defending the "right" of the radicals to throw stones and metal
objects at
> those persons expressing ideas contrary to theirs (pro-peace,
> anti-terrorism demonstrations, 1995-6). Fortunately, we hear less
and less
> of this non-sense that physical harm to another is a valid form of
personal
> expression or speech. But the base problem lingers, where do we draw
the
> line of expression of ideas and intent to do harm. It has long been
held
> that shouting "fire" in a crowded building is not a protected form of
> speech. Nor is libel (forgetting for now the problems of defining or
> proving it). And where do we draw the line (or does it even matter?)
> between public and private? And where do expression and action get
> separated? Thinking about doing something, or telling some one about
those
> thoughts are not generally the same as actually doing it. But where
does
> thought become expression become action?
> 
> This case doesn't solely revolve around the speech issue...IMO, it
also
> revolves around the public/private issue, and whether or not the
government
> can rightfully "enter" a "private" business place to regulate these
> matters. Recent history (80 years or so...) shows an increasing
tendency
> for the government to "protect" workers by regulating the workplace.
There
> are health & safety regs, minimum wage regs, etc. The "American"
populace
> has in general supported (and at times demanded) these external
limits on
> the "private" employer/employee relationship. Legal precedent exists.
> 
> There are two problems here and historically the government has been
called
> upon to keep a balance between "free speech" and "harmful speech" on
the
> one hand and "Privacy" and "Protection" on the other hand. The
debate now
> is with this case which way will (should?) the pendulum swing? More
> protection (reduction of privacy), more freedom (or hateful
speech)... 
> 
> Personally, I hope no one wins this eternal debate 100% since the
results
> would be disastrous.
> 
> Just some thoughts...
> 
> Albert P. Franco, II
> encryption@apf2.com
> 
> 

==

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com