Posted on 11/08/2014 5:26:57 PM PST by Maudeen
A former Navy chaplain who made headlines for being court martialed for praying in Jesus’ name has been elected to the Colorado State House of Representatives.
Former Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, nicknamed “Chaps,” won the seat Tuesday in Colorado House District 15 with more than 70 percent of the vote.
His work will begin in January.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Most excellent!
No, then you would be the author of the thread and can say or word it anyway you choose.
Thanks.
My question originated with this thought; Some sources don’t allow us to post the article, only a link to their site is allowed. How can we let readers on FR know if they want to bother clicking?
Is it safe to assume from your answer that if the headline is posted, along with the link (as it is done now on FR), and post number one consisted of a Freeper summary of the article, without any direct quotes, that the legal aspects of not posting the article itself have been met?
Just say "Link only" and write out the link, without making it clickable.
and post number one consisted of a Freeper summary of the article, without any direct quotes, that the legal aspects of not posting the article itself have been met?
El correcto. As long as the article is properly posted and duly attributed, post #1 can pretty much say anything, within profanity guidelines, of course.
I think you are misunderstanding my question.
My question related to threads where the original article is not allowed to be posted.
Only a link is allowed.
I can’t find an example, there are only a few such news sources.
Maybe, to be able to make my case more clearly, I’ll ask you this question again when I com across such a thread.
OK, now I have a FR thread to link to: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3227093/posts
That is a thread which only allows a link to the source.
My question is this; If I summarized the article at the linked source (above) using my own words, not quoting anything from the source verbatim, would the legal aspects of not posting the article itself have been met?
Yes, because you are the author of the thread giving the link.
You could also put what ever title wording in you wanted because you are the author.
Then people can choose or not choose to hit the link.
Did I help?
And I'm no lawyer, but I do play one on TV :-)
You confirmed what I have thought all along, but I don’t ever see anyone do that with those threads. It seems very common sense, but the law is often anything but that.
We just don’t want a lurking lib to hurt FR or JimRob.
Exactly
What can he as a member of the Colorado legislature do to them?
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.