[jonlucc]

> If code is speech, does this mean anyone can write code to perform any kind of task (nefarious or otherwise) and be protected by the First Amendment?

Not a lawyer, but I don't think so. You can't just say anything you want, either (yelling "fire!" in a crowded room, slander, inciting violence, etc).

[simoncion]

> You can't just say anything you want, either (yelling "fire!" in a crowded room ...

This is simply not true. Read Trope Two here [0] for a brief overview (although the entire essay is well worth reading), and [1] for a in-depth analysis of the trope.

[0] https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...

[1] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...

[jonlucc]

If I understand correctly, it's not that the force of what I said is incorrect, but just that the specific phrase doesn't mean what I intended? The point is still that not all speech is legal, therefore not all code would be legal, even if code is speech.

[simoncion]

> ...just that the specific phrase doesn't mean what I intended?

The point is that the boundaries of where speech loses its First Amendment protections are very clearly defined. Now that you are aware that the "Fire!" example is not an example of unprotected speech, you would do a grave disservice to discourse if you continue to use it as an example of unprotected speech.