On Thu, 3 May 2007 elw@stderr.org wrote: ::The AACS key being posted is just a string of numbers, fairly short. ::Numbers, like letters and words, ought to fall well within the bounds of ::free speech.... shouldn't they? People use the idea of free speech to suggest that they can say anything they want, but legally this is not what free speech represents. "Free speech" is related only to political speech. There are actually certain types of speech that are NOT protected. I can say the word 'jackass' for instance. By itself this is okay. I am actually NOT protected if I say 'you are a jackass' (please note that this is for example only and not a reflection of an actual opinion). 'You are a jackass' is considered an example of 'fighting words,' which are explicitly NOT protected by the Constitution. This is why liable is also not protected. Screaming 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater is not protected. See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/18.html for an explanation of the history of Free Speech and the specific limits on it. So, a number is okay, by itself. But that is not the question if we want to talk about free speech. The question in terms of free speech is, can I say '00-00-00 is the key to crack DVD copy protection?' For that question, see the section on seditious speech and seditious libel - words used to incite criminal acts. Among other things, it leads to subquestions like 'Am I inciting people to crack copy protection by stating this number, or am I stating a fact?' 'If I am stating a fact and someone later uses it to break the law, am I responsible, or are they responsible?' 'If gun manufacturers are not responsible for people using their wares illegally, could a parallel be drawn here?' 'Is there any reason I might legitimately state this number that is not related to crime?' 'Am I inciting or advocating?' (advocating is okay, inciting is not) These are thoughts on the notion of free speech as related to words. But, as pointed out earlier by others on the list, they are trying to argue that the number in question is not a word at all. They are arguing that the number in question is machine code, which, like any other business object, can be patented, copyrighted, and controlled. They cannot win a free speech debate on its face. They could, potentially, win others. -Alexis