Coin Center Advocates for Code as a Form of Free Speech

Programming code is a form of free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution, says Coin Center.

Programming code is a form of free speech that should be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to Peter Van Valkenburgh and Lisandro Piper of Coin Center.

Big new Coin Center report on the First Amendment.

Highly recommend reading if you, for example, happen to work at the SDNY and find yourself up at night wondering if the Supreme Court treats “functional” software as less worthy of strict constitutional protections.

Spoiler, it… https://t.co/wxlD7SXTEx

— Peter Van Valkenburgh (@valkenburgh) April 20, 2026

“Developers are authors and inventors, not agents, custodians, or fiduciaries. Requiring them to register or obtain licenses in advance ignores the historical logic of financial oversight and imposes a classic prior restraint on activities that are essentially self-expression. This is unconstitutional,” they stated.

According to the experts, writing and publishing code is no different from writing a book or publishing a recipe.

The First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, essentially provides strict constitutional protection for developers who merely publish and maintain software.

When a Developer Becomes an Intermediary

Van Valkenburgh and Piper stated that their report aims to help courts and regulatory bodies distinguish between the publication of code and the professional activities of a software creator.

A developer falls under regulation when they control user assets, conduct transactions on their behalf, or make decisions for them.

“Lower courts confuse execution with expression, which undermines the First Amendment protection of code,” noted Coin Center specialists.

They added that some judges consider code closer to execution than expression because it can be run to achieve real-world results.

However, the experts insist that such activity is pure self-expression. They argue that this is confirmed by U.S. Supreme Court practice, despite errors by lower courts.

Van Valkenburgh and Piper referred to the 1985 case of Lowe v. SEC. The high court then ruled that a publisher who does not hold client funds or conduct transactions on their behalf is protected by free speech, is not considered a professional market participant, and is not subject to corresponding regulation.

Programmers Should Not Be Scapegoats

Cryptocurrency protocols have eliminated some traditional intermediaries. With self-custody and P2P transfers, there is no need for a central authority to control transactions.

Traditional financial structures acting on behalf of users are subject to state regulation and must obtain licenses.

According to Van Valkenburgh and Piper, the complexity of regulating new technologies does not justify attempts to make software developers intermediaries “for convenience.”

“Blockchain-based projects do not require the invention of new legal doctrines or exceptions. They require the good faith application of established First Amendment principles to a new technological context,” they added.

In the computer age, where software is the main means of expressing ideas and organizing economic life, “these principles are more important than ever.” Writing and publishing code is speech that cannot be silenced by licensing in a free society, Coin Center experts concluded.

Context

Crypto developers have been seeking legal protection from criminal prosecution for the code they write for several years. In 2025, a court issued guilty verdicts to several programmers based on how third parties used their software.

A notable example is the trial of one of the founders of the crypto mixer Tornado Cash, Roman Storm. Authorities found him guilty of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmission business.

Many experts disagreed with the decision. Samson Enzer, a partner at the law firm CahillNXT, stated that the government lacks evidence to prove Storm’s intentional assistance to criminals. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin also spoke in his defense.

The defense seeks to dismiss the case, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment. Lawyers argue that Storm had no intention of participating in the crimes he is accused of.

In August, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal division, Matthew Galeotti, announced that the department would stop prosecuting DeFi application developers under the statute for operating an unlicensed money transmission business.

However, Van Valkenburgh noted that the official’s words do not carry binding legal force.