Code is speech, though, and is protected by the first amendment: see Bernstein v. United States.
I don't think a cryptographic algorithm is "expressive" any more than it is purely functional; indeed, the 9th circuit evaluated and rejected the expressive/functional distinction for source code in the above case.
Regardless - code is speech, and the government cannot compel or prevent speech except in very narrow circumstances.
> Code is speech, though, and is protected by the first amendment: see Bernstein v. United States.
That is very much overstating the holding in the case [0], the most relevant part of which seems to be:
“encryption software, in its source code form and as employed by those in the field of cryptography, must be viewed as expressive for First Amendment purposes”
The ruling spends a key bit of analysis discussing the expressive function of source code in this field as distinct from the function of object code in controlling a computer.
A law compelling providing functionality which it is merely most convenient to comply with by creating source code as part of the process is not directing speech, any more than an law delivery of physical goods where the most convenient method of doing so involves interacting by speech with the person who physically holds them on your behalf is.
> In the government's view, by targeting this unique functional aspect of source code, rather than the content of the ideas that may be expressed therein, the export regulations manage to skirt entirely the concerns of the First Amendment. This argument is flawed for at least two reasons...
I think you should read it a bit more closely. The court threw out the "functional/expressive" argument for source code, like I said in my original comment.
Secondly, what are you talking about that source code is the most "convenient" way to implement this? It's the literal, only possible way to present an interface to a user, ask them a question, and "signal" to other applications if the user is a minor or not. You're being completely nonsensical there. There's no other way to do that: someone must write some code. The bill specifically says "an API"!
I think you should read a bit more closely, both to the decision, and to the post you are responding to (which addresses that), and to the context of what is being discussed in the thread (which is not "source code").
That's forced labor. I'm not required to write a line of code to please anyone. It's free software with no warranty. They have LLMs, let's see them build it. :)
Well, that's a 13th Amendment issue not a 1st Amendment one, but, in any case, its not forced if it doesn't direct who does the work to create the functionality, only requires you to have the functionality provided if you are doing some other activity, it is more of an in-kind tax. [0] (Now, if you want to make an argument that when the activity it is conditioned on is expressive that that makes it a 1A violation as a content-based regulation when the condition is tied to the content of the expressive act, that is a better 1A argument, that might actually have some merit against many of the real uses of, say, age verification laws; but “if I am doing this activity, I must either create or acquire and use software that has a specified function” is not, in general, a 1A violation.)
[0] It's not really that other than metaphorically, either, any more than every regulation of any kind is an “in-kind tax”, but its far closer to that than “forced labor”.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if you are suggesting that writing an "API", as is legally required in AB1043, can be done without writing code I would be interested to know how!
Providing an API is required if you do some other thing, but you are not required to do that other thing. Requirements that are triggered by engaging in some other activity are not compulsions if the activity they are triggered by is not compulsory. (Now, whether restricting the thing that triggers the requirement by adding the requirement is permissible is a legitimate question, but that is not the question that is addressed when you ignore the thing triggering the requirement and treat the requirement as a free-standing mandate.)
> Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a
particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time
application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of
the following categories pertains to the user...
Yes, and the other thing you have to do for this to be applicable to you is choose to be an "operating system provider", as defined in the law.
If you don't want to write, hire someone to write, pay someone to provide an implementation that has already been written, or acquire an implementation already written that is available without payment, such an API, you can simply choose not to do what is defined as being an “operating system provider”, and no obligation attaches,
No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do labor to write code for an API.
If you write an operating system and distribute it (an act of speech) you are forced to do this or else you risk $7500/child/day in fines from the California AG. The law makes no distinction between Terry Davis and Microsoft. (In fact, you could say TempleOS is protected religious speech...!)
I don't know what's wrong with you, honestly, that you would so vivaciously defend this impractical, immoral and completely nonsensical law so vivaciously.
The law can be bad and a specific legal argument against it can be wrong at the same time. Would you logically accept (as opposed to mere political convenience) every potential argument whose conclusion is that this law is invalid? If not, does that mean there is something “wrong with you”?
On the object level: giving medical advice is a form of (literal) speech. If you want to practice medicine and give medical advice as part of that practice, there are tons of constraints on what you can say to patients. The argument you’re laying out here is clearly too general.
> I don't know what's wrong with you, honestly, that you would so vivaciously defend this impractical, immoral and completely nonsensical law so vivaciously.
I do, these people are entryists and they have evil goals in mind.
Do not hire people like this, and block them from working on your projects.
I don't think a cryptographic algorithm is "expressive" any more than it is purely functional; indeed, the 9th circuit evaluated and rejected the expressive/functional distinction for source code in the above case.
Regardless - code is speech, and the government cannot compel or prevent speech except in very narrow circumstances.