We have a situation in this country where the Klan, neo-Nazis and hate groups of every stripe routinely and regularly exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, often on courthouse steps, with police protection. They are able to do this thanks to our society's long-held belief, codified in the First Amendment, that despite the offensive nature of someone's beliefs, we need to uphold their right of expression so that the rest of us can enjoy the same rights when we choose to exercise them. The courts have upheld this principle time and again. At the least, a federal judge needs to determine that Sklyarov's talk about the Adobe protection scheme, in and of itself, should be afforded constitutional protection. Simply TALKING about a means of circumvention should not rise to the level of a felony, particularly when the interests represented by the DMCA are corporate, and not civil. Certainly his talk doesn't equate to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The Constitution was written to protect the People last time I checked. Unless I am mistaken, he did not get up in Las Vegas and perform a literal demonstration of the software (Even if he had, we then get into the issue of fair use, which is another ball of wax altogether). His arrest IMHO should be judged to be a form of prior restraint, and the FBI should be ordered to find another avenue to pursue Sklyarov's company, pending a challenge to the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a situation in this country where the Klan, neo-Nazis and hate groups of every stripe routinely and regularly exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, often on courthouse steps, with police protection. They are able to do this thanks to our society's long-held belief, codified in the First Amendment, that despite the offensive nature of someone's beliefs, we need to uphold their right of expression so that the rest of us can enjoy the same rights when we choose to exercise them. The courts have upheld this principle time and again. At the least, a federal judge needs to determine that Sklyarov's talk about the Adobe protection scheme, in and of itself, should be afforded constitutional protection. Simply TALKING about a means of circumvention should not rise to the level of a felony, particularly when the interests represented by the DMCA are corporate, and not civil. Certainly his talk doesn't equate to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The Constitution was written to protect the People last time I checked. Unless I am mistaken, he did not get up in Las Vegas and perform a literal demonstration of the software (Even if he had, we then get into the issue of fair use, which is another ball of wax altogether). His arrest IMHO should be judged to be a form of prior restraint, and the FBI should be ordered to find another avenue to pursue Sklyarov's company, pending a challenge to the DMCA.