The government, on the other hand, is arguing that source code is a device just like circuitry, not a form of speech. It's going to be very interesting to see how this debate plays itself out because both sides have very valid points. If we expect the court to take a fully developed theory of semiotics as a basis for its decision, then we're in trouble. After my exchange with Tim, however, it occurred to me that a theory of semiotics, that is, a consensus on an academic understanding of signification, while desirable, wouldn't actually be necessary before rendering an intelligent legal ruling in this particular case. I see three reasons for this.
Legal discourse has a pragmatic character that philosophical debate often lacks.
The 19th and 20th centuries are all the proof you need of that. This is true even to the point where legal precedent can override philosophical considerations. It is this last point that I want to focus on in making my case. Let's consider a simple theory of speech, as illustrated with an example, and see how this plays itself out. Nanotech and Quantum Mechanics Win2k Memory Tweaks Game.