Comment by alphazard
19 hours ago
Likely unconstitutional as it violates the 1st amendment, which has done a very good job of protecting the right to author and distribute software over the years. Clearly an unintended positive consequence, since no one who worked or voted on the Bill of Rights had a computer.
If the courts upheld the part in question, it would create a clear path to go after software authors for any crime committed by a user. Cryptocurrencies would become impossible to develop in the US. Holding authors responsible for the actions of their users basically means everyone has to stop distributing software under their real names. There would be a serious chilling effect, as most open source projects shutdown or went underground.
The law in question was very specific and not as broad as you imply here. In fact more specific than the Redittor implies too since the law doesn't cover audio models in general only those purpose built to replicate a particular individual.
As the law is specifically targeting models made to duplicate an individual it isn't hard to provide sufficient evidence to clear the hurdles required of restrictions on free speech as examples of the negative effects are well documented and "speech model for an individual" isn't a broad category.
Also I would point out first amendment isn't used by the US to protect software delivery anywhere. Instead it is Congress explicitly encouraging it through the laws it passes.