well there's 'speech' and then there's 'speech'... (Score 5)

In reading Judge Kaplans' ruling reference is made to whether code can be considered 'speech'. They state that the argument that code is 'speech' is "baseless" and liken it to an assassination. There reasoning is that code "causes computers to perform desired functions" [i'll leave out all the jokes targeted for coders and Microsoft users...]. The error in this logic and analogy is not hard to find, (1) code in and of itself does not do anything (2) the analogy would be better formed (although still biased) if the code were likened to the instrument used in an assassination.

Now the real point and question: Why is speech that can cause computers to perform an action not protected, but speech that can cause humans to action (and be much more dangerous) protected? Why can't those in the system recognize that computer code is really no different than propaganda or a user's manual, regardless of what the manual explains how to do? I've always thought that making those 'dangerous' instructions or 'dangerous' ideas was the whole point of free speech. And isn't the point to protect the concepts and ideas of the 'speech', not just a representation of those? Does that mean that if someone were to take the DeCSS source code, and rewrite it as a sonata, or even just specify that it should be read in iambic pentameter, and comment out single function call that it would then be legal? It seems like almost like thought crime. What would it take to once and for all make computer code protected under free speech? and could this case lead to it?