“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 21 Nov
Finally some good news about lawyers understanding language.
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Thwachi 21 Nov
That's good news about lawyers
reply
43 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 21 Nov
I mean if money is free speech I don’t understand how code is so different
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 21 Nov
Code is speech:
https://hls.harvard.edu/clinic-stories/in-the-news/why-the-first-amendment-also-protects-code/
reply
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 21 Nov
That’s what has confused me with this whole case… I just don’t understand the footing
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 21 Nov
This courts are completely in the bag for the government so it doesn't matter how good arguments are or what precedents exist. It's all kangaroo courts that want to make examples of cases like this. The legal system is broken beyond repair thanks to KYC/AML and all other financial laws.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 21 Nov
"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