Posted on 07/09/2008 10:07:48 PM PDT by kristinn
...How important is calumny today? In 2000, calumny effectively led to John McCain's defeat in South Carolina. That smear campaign against him used robo-calls and fliers, and e-mail also played an important role, as the New York Times reported in February 2000. Arguably, calumny defeated John Kerry in 2004, and the infamous Swift boat television ads of that summer were, importantly, preceded by an aggressive Internet campaign begun that January that included perhaps the first viral campaign e-mail: a computer-generated image of Kerry and Jane Fonda beside each other on a podium at an antiwar rally. The image originally emerged at the Web site FreeRepublic.com, and Fonda had not in fact been at the event. But the damage was done. Today we are seeing viral anti-Obama e-mails, some of which I have traced to some of the same origin points for the 2000 and 2004 smear campaigns.
SNIP
A right to free speech is no excuse for lying. While strongly protected rights of free speech are critical to a healthy democracy, rights bring responsibilities. Citizens should, as a standard practice, take responsibility for their views -- the matters of fact and principle that they wish to put before the public for consideration -- by appending their full, legal names to their expressions, even in blog posts. While there are times and places for anonymity, it should be the exception. Unfortunately, the Internet has brought us to a point where anonymity is the rule, not the exception. Rather than facilitating free speech, this is corrosive to democratic discourse. It's time to rebuild a responsible culture in which people speak in their full, legal names and honor the truth.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ms Allen, an employee of a leading university, has succeeded in making the "issue" the definition of calumny; to wit, calumny n. 1. Statements without the true identity of the speaker, lies by definition; anonymous opinion, lies by definition; lies. 2. Internet conservative opinion.
I would not even think of a personal contact with anyone without my true identity.
Putting my opinion out there were people, whom I have no way of ever knowing who they are, can read my opinion, possibly becoming infuriated and acting on their fury IS A WHOLE 'NUTHER MATTER.
Can we get back to the real issue, Ms Allen? Yes, one photo was fake, one wasn't. Were Kerry's fellow vets lying? If you and Kerry say yes, prove it. You cannot.
That is why you attempt to create bogus "issues."
I was living in South Carolina in 2000, and voted in the primary (for Bush). I never saw one of these fliers, and never heard about these rumors until after the primary. You’d think living in the state capital and working five blocks from the Statehouse, I’d have heard about this stuff.
}:-)4
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on." Mark Twain.
Is that what all them fancy words mean? Do university employees get paid by the word?
Why is Ms Allen trying to make something that's been a factor since the beginning of time the "issue?"
It ain't the Internet, Ms Allen.
She’s friends with the Obama’s and others on his staff... set-up.
Where else can a plain Jane get, not only a column but video, on the WaPo because ‘they’re treating Barack harshly’. Oh, and by our very own MD4Bush protagonist, Mosk.
That’s two strikes. I decided to dig on her after the ‘Ether’ piece... not pretty. As her dear leader said, “If you want to keep going there, we will... but it’s just a distraction”.
Great post & even greater thread. The anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life ENEMY within. You cannot even throw out the jokers in the domestic enemies decks of cards. They all work against us without remorse/guilt/conscience.
A glimpse inside the criminal mind.
Plus once made people can erase the “its a fake” caption and disseminate it as authentic.
Not a smart move and a not very funny joke. Why not use the real picture?
A notable aspect of this controversy involves two opposing forces: the quality of Danielle Allen’s “genius” and the extent to which she advances falsehoods.
Certainly one of the most important traits of intelligence is the ability to discern truth from non truth, such as with the Fonda/Kerry photo. (Let’s be clear: deceitfulness is not a valid measure of intelligence). So the question here is which is more important to Ms. Allen—her political agenda or or her reputation as a “genius?”
Nitpicking raised to an art form.
Kerry and Fonda were both at a different antiwar event.
Kerry had a long and clear history as an anti-Vietnam War activist. So did Fonda.
Kerry met with our enemies during wartime. So did Fonda.
Kerry made his Vietnam War service a leading qualification to be president. He put that era into play, we didn't.
Expect more of this from the Obama crowd - they will jump on a minor falsehood to try and discredit the truthful claims about Obama's liberalism.
I object strenuously to the term "Messiah" being applied to Obama, and stated so. The result was a threat to track my IP and burn our house down. I have never threatened anyone over politics, and I have to admit, the whole issue is disconcerting. Thats why this article is BS..
They are already using to the same tactic to smear those who point out to the Islamic training that Barack had as a child. Training that he himself has noted and recited in the modern era.
His site calls all such talk “smears” and denies it in total.
I think she meant calamari but I can't figger how it fits into the artikle.......
As the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth did, along with videos of their faces. Every single on of them.
Ms. Allen’s frequent quotations of Machiavelli are quite appropriate, given the candidate she supports.
...so President Obama can sick the IRS upon you, and the EPA, OSHA, and DOJ Civil Rights Division upon your business.
The rights holders of the original work have a copyright interest in the derivative work -- they can demand a share of any proceeds from it, and can even, in some cases, halt further reproduction and distribution.
If I publish a book that has your photo in it without your permission, you can collect damages and require that I remove it from future editions; if I cannot publish a new edition without the photo, then I cannot publish a new edition at all.
If Snopes HAS a fair use, then so would FR. Only FR was hounded by Corbis and the photographer.
Do you know what discussions Snopes had with Corbis? I don't. Maybe they worked out a deal, or maybe they simply stood firm and threatened to go ahead and take it to court. But in any case, whethe FR has a legal fair use claim and whether it chooses to assert that claim -- up to and including fighting it out in court -- are two different questions.
So why is it “newsworthy” to have them on Snopes but not newsworthy for FR to also show them in a discussion of the content?
Who says it isn't newsworthy on FR? That is a legal argument, one that isn't settled until a judge says so.
The vast majority of claimed copyright infringements, especially online, are settled by a lawyer sending a nastygram and the "offender" removing the allegedly infringing material. A lawyer's letter is not legally binding, and the decision of FR or any other party not to fight it is not precedent.
Again, we don't know what kind of arrangement Snopes may have reached with Corbis. We do not know if they decided to negotiate with Corbis where FR simply decided it wasn't worth attempting to do so.
It is possible, though far from certain, that what you claim is correct; that Corbis made one set of demands of FR and a wholly different one of Snopes. If they thought that Snopes debunked the false claim and that FR perpetuated the false claim -- whether their belief is justified or not -- they have every right to treat different folks who want to use their images differently.
This is the element missed os often in the threads claiming that FR is not "allowed" to use certain material while other outlets are. If you choose not to fight a legal claim that doesn't mean you've lost, and your decision isn't any sort of precedent.
Danielle Allen is sure a genius. She can't tell parody from reality.
Parody is not a magic wand that erases all copyright claims. One of the legal criteria judges weigh is the likelihood that the parody will be confused with the original. Corbis would have a pretty easy time demonstrating the likelihood that the fake photo would be confused with a genuine news photo, given the number of people who received and forwarded it in e-mail believing it to be genuine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.