Censorship protest relevance (was: Re: Continuation of my previous mail)

Jean Louis wrote:
> -@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
> -@cartouche
> -@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
> -may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> -calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> -acceptable way of terminating a program.
> -@end cartouche
>
> There was some "Federal censorship regulation" that would prohibit the
> free speech, and the pun is within the programs function is abort() on
> Federal censorship regulation.
>   

That was a controversy far enough back to be known to me more as recent 
history than as direct experience, but I understand that we have made 
significant progress since then towards program source code being 
recognized as protected free speech under the US Constitution and that 
much of our cryptographic source code is now distributed on that basis.  
Since GNU is based in USA, is this particular protest obsolete, as any 
such censorship applied to us would be clearly unconstitutional, or are 
there still possible risks here?

In short, is this protest still accurate or can we now confidently say 
that that change will never happen?  Do we still keep it anyway just to 
highlight the absurdity?

[CC'ing RMS here in case this has fallen through the cracks and we 
really have already won on this issue -- I do not know but I expect that 
he does]


-- Jacob