[anonymouskimmer]

1) Integration or removal of features isn't speech. And has been subject to government compulsion for a long time (e.g. seat belts and catalytic converters in automobiles).

2) Business speech is limited in many, many ways. There is even compelled speech in business (e.g. black box warnings, mandatory sonograms prior to abortions).

[crazygringo]

I said, "As long as nobody is being harmed". Seatbelts and catalytic converters are about keeping people safe from harm. As are black box warnings and mandatory sonograms.

And legally, code and software are considered a form of speech in many contexts.

Do you really want the government to start telling you what software you can and cannot build? You think the government should be able to outlaw Python and require you to do your work in Java, and outlaw JSON and require your API's to return XML? Because that's the type of interference you're talking about here.

[anonymouskimmer]

Mandatory sonograms aren't about harm prevention. (Though yes, I would agree with you if you said the government should not be able to compel them.)

In the US, commercial activities do not have constitutionally protected speech rights, with the sole exception of "the press". This is covered under the commerce clause and the first amendment, respectively.

I assemble DNA, I am not a programmer. And yes, due to biosecurity concerns there are constraints. Again, this might be covered under your "does no harm" standard. Though my making smallpox, for example, would not be causing harm any more than someone building a nuclear weapon would cause harm. The harm would come from releasing it.

But I think, given that AI has encouraged people to suicide, and would allow minors the ability to circumvent parental controls, as examples, that regulations pertaining to AI integration in software, including mandates that allow users to disable it (NOTE, THIS DOESN'T FORCE USERS TO DISABLE IT!!), would also fall under your harm standard. Outside of that, the leaking of personally identifiable information does cause material harm every day. So there needs to be proactive control available to the end user regarding what AI does on their computer, and how easy it is to accidentally enable information-gathering AI when that was not intended.

I can come up with more examples of harm beyond mere annoyance. Hopefully these examples are enough.