Accurate, Focused Research on Law, Technology and Knowledge Discovery Since 2002

EFF – What We Talk About When We Talk About Apple and Compelled Speech

Via EFF – “Last week, EFF filed a brief in support of Apple’s fight against the FBI, in which we argued that forcing Apple to write—and sign—a custom version of iOS would violate the First Amendment rights of Apple and its programmers. That’s because the right to free speech sharply limits the government’s ability to compel unwilling speakers to speak, and writing and signing computer code are forms of protected speech. So by forcing Apple to write and sign an update to undermine the security of iOS, the court is also compelling Apple to speak in violation of the First Amendment. Along with our brief, we published a “deep dive” into our legal arguments, which you should check out before reading further. Our argument got some positive attention, but it’s also raised valid questions from folks who aren’t totally convinced. This (long) post attempts to clear up some of those questions. A caveat: First Amendment doctrine has a lot of facets. Much as it would be nice to present a grand unified theory of free speech, that isn’t the function of a legal brief, or of this FAQ.  We’ve made an argument that is firmly grounded in First Amendment case law and that fits the particulars of Apple’s case. Nevertheless, it’s important that our argument be consistent with well-accepted government practices. We think what the FBI wants Apple to do is unprecedented, and an Apple win here wouldn’t risk making every government regulation into a constitutional violation…”

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.