[supercat]

We should just paraprase the living heck out of their stupid articles, being certain to note who the original writer was.

One of the difficulties with any sort of excerpting or paraphrasing is that the source being excerpted or paraphrased can complain that their words were distorted or taken out of context. Unless the original (and unaltered) source is available for comparison, there's no way for the person who excerpted or paraphrased the work to defend against such a charge.

If I try to tell others that e.g. the L.A. Times said something hateful and someone accuses me of taking their words of context, how can I show that I didn't take their words out of context but am not allowed to include the full context in which they appeared?

[texasbluebell]

...that the source being excerpted or paraphrased can complain that their words were distorted or taken out of context.

Ugh. We'll find a way. Something will just evolve. I'm sure of it. Can't see a way yet, but this won't stop FR.

Well, as others have said, just the salient facts should be excerpted. That will be enough for us to run with it. Just a few quotes from the original.

Honestly, why not? That's plenty, and saves a heck of a lot of bandwidth. This will actually be an advantage in that regard.

[Nita Nupress]

If I try to tell others that e.g. the L.A. Times said something hateful and someone accuses me of taking their words of context, how can I show that I didn't take their words out of context but am not allowed to include the full context in which they appeared?

Are you referring to legal action? I thought it was the plaintiff's job to prove something, not the defendent's.

I'm probably misunderstanding your point here.