“The government, on appeal, says that the software published at the banned addresses is property, but the software is non-proprietary lines of code that no one on the planet can own, control, or alter in any way.”
pull down to refresh
related posts
58 sats \ 0 replies \ @OgFOMK 10h
Finally some good news about lawyers understanding language.
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Thwachi 8h
That's good news about lawyers
reply
43 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 9h
I mean if money is free speech I don’t understand how code is so different
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 OP 9h
Code is speech:
https://hls.harvard.edu/clinic-stories/in-the-news/why-the-first-amendment-also-protects-code/
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 9h
That’s what has confused me with this whole case… I just don’t understand the footing
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 10h
"The Treasury also encouraged individuals who used the service before it was sanctioned to apply for an OFAC license and acknowledged that it would approve non-illicit transactions."
Why would they encourage this behavior unless they want the information for another time?
reply