[downrightmike]

Already holds up: "The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case). " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[sjy]

It's worth checking that claim against the Ninth Circuit's decision [1], because the court said:

> We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not ... We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech.

[1] https://cr.yp.to/export/1999/0506-order.html

[pessimizer]

How it worked out last time is no guarantee of how it will work out this time.

[ralph84]

I like the odds in the US better than anywhere else. No other country has a better track record of protecting freedom of speech.