Replies

You wrote:
there is no collective “voting public’s right to be fully aware of the views of a candidate for President of the US.”

Sure there is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1, US COnstitution

That right, as relates to the coming elections, is of higher value than any alleged claim to copyright over this document. No rights are absolute.

Whose freedom of speech is being abridged if a candidate for public office decides not to make available to the public a book or article that he or she may have written in the past? I just don't get the connection to the First Amendment. Are you saying that when someone runs for public office, he/she loses any copyright law protection that he/she may have had?

Yes, I agree that no right is absolute. In fact, in this case, one might be able to publish her thesis (or parts of it) without violating copyright protection if that publication falls within the "fair use doctrine." That's derived from a series of SCOTUS decisions; it's a bunch of tests that courts use to determine copyright cases typically when the defendant creates a work derived from the original work of the copyright owner.