More sophistry. Hanson's articles are all on NR or Town Hall or places like that, places that we don't have to excerpt. You go to Davis's personal site, get the same articles, and then excerpt them, sometimes long after they were originally posted here.
there's a reason why FR honors requests to excerpt, and that's because they're pretty sure that they would lose a lawsuit which was taken to it's conclusion.
The reason is a minor lawsuit against a minor player, like a local paper, would cost tens of thousands of dollars. A bigger lawsuit, like the one with the WaPo, would cost much more. JimRob doesn't want to spend the money on lawsuits, nor does he want to risk personal liability. He is therefore very risk averse, and just accedes to the requests, as he has explained at various times over the years.
The fact is that the issue has not been finally decided, and however it would come out with this crazy Supreme Court we have, we are free to post unexcerpted articles from sources unless Jim Rob has agreed otherwise. The Supreme Court has not decided yet that gay marriage is required by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Suppose it does. Does that mean that states are wrong NOW to enforce the law in a reasonable, alternate way?
If I see an article posted on a community bulletin board, I am free to read it, read it to a friend, and even write down what it says and repeat it to others. Technology changes; we need to adapt to it, and figure out whether an article posted for all to see on a web site is the same as an article printed on a community bulletin board, or whether it is as protected as a magazine sold on a news stand. It's an interesting question, and like the gay marriage issue, it's unsettled at the moment.
It's only unsettled here on Free Republic.
It's been long-settled in the world of jurisprudence.