Posted on 05/09/2002 11:21:02 AM PDT by ElRushbo
Freedom fighters
by Kate MacDonald, Staff Writer May 09, 2002
One of the most influential and monumental First Amendment battles of this new millennium is being fought in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The unhappy marriage of print media and the Internet has finally reached an impasse. Free Republic bills itself as a "loosely organized group of grassroots Americans who support the constitution and look for honesty, integrity and honor from those in government." Nice PR. Really, this staunchly conservative activist group's popularity and fondness for a good battle have turned quite a few heads on Capitol Hill. Active members, who call themselves FReepers, include Dr. Alan Keyes, Gary Aldrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Congressman Bob Barr and Matt Drudge. In its fifth year, the Free Republic has grown to over 60,000 members with chapters all over the country. The crux of their movement is Freerepublic.com, a massive forum-driven website where the pseudo-militant grassroots conservatives can convene to pontificate at the virtual podium on the devious workings of government and media.
There is no noise on the Internet, but these ranters are screaming loudly enough to garner the reproach of more than easily offended liberals. The FReepers frequently use examples from current media to facilitate their arguments. Their practice of posting entire articles lifted from news sources all over the country has infuriated commercial media.
Crying theft, unfair competition and intellectual property rights, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have filed suit against Free Republic.
What a delicious irony, that a group of enlightened and loquacious defenders of constitutional privilege are now entangled in this trenchant imbroglio calling into question the very principles their movement was founded upon.
The Free Republic calls their media adversaries "elements of the socialist propaganda machine" and claims that the practice of posting articles is tantamount to "gathering in our virtual town hall where we virtually pass around newspaper clippings."
The newspapers claim their copyrighted material is produced at great expense to them. They post these materials online, and the ad revenue from their websites is necessary to sustain their operation.
As both sides are armed with strong and persuasive rhetoric, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that Free Republic is a nonprofit movement. All of its funding comes from private donations. Therefore, there is soundness in the Freepers' assertion that they are not stealing the articles for commercial gain but rather passing them around to educate and illuminate each other on issues of immediate relevancy.
The district judge disagreed and ruled erroneously in favor of the Post and the Times, saying that Free Republic is a commercial enterprise. Free Republic is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and will likely have its arguments heard in September. In the meantime, the group is barred from allowing its members to post full-text articles from The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
The FReepers are calling this legal fight no less than a "life-and-death struggle." In fact, this description is the truth. If this battle falls in favor of the commercial media, the Free Republic will die. With its principled dedication to the First Amendment called into question, the group is being forced to defend it absolutely. If it fails, then the fundamental foundation of the group's movement will have been destroyed. No structure can stand without a foundation.
The fight that Free Republic is embroiled in is broader and farther-reaching than just the relatively small group of people involved. The U.S. Constitution is the foundation upon which our democracy is built. Its first and foremost amendment is being challenged in the name of monetary gain.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals must recognize that to rule in favor of the commercial media in this case will weaken and debase the words supporting this country. Chipping away at the foundation doesn't bode well for any American: conservative, liberal, or purveyor of socialist propaganda.
Kate MacDonald (kmacdonald
Sounds like the European model to me. =^)
5.56mm
I agree with Dog Gone -- this needs to go the SCOTUS and let them rule and then let the Washington Post and LA Times get what they have coming to them. Count me in for a donation! Hope they are forced to not only pay legal bills but damages for bringing what I consider a frivolous lawsuit against FR!
You are the best! And I am so glad you are on our side.
I smell SLAPP suit!!!Hmmm... Could be.
SLAPP = "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"
From http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Beder_SLAPPS.html:
"...Every year thousands of people are sued in the USA for speaking out against governments and corporations. Multi-million dollar law suits are being filed against individual citizens and groups for circulating petitions, writing to public officials, speaking at, or even just attending, public meetings, organising boycotts and engaging in peaceful demonstrations.[2] These law suits have been labelled "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs by University of Denver academics Penelope Canan and George Pring, who have been studying such suits for more than a decade with the help of funding from the US National Science Foundation......One trial judge pointed out:
The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to "stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so"...The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism.[17]...
Actually, due to the selling of online newspaper archives to high school, university and public libraries, this may have crossed over into the realm of a "suit without substantial merit."
We all pay for these online archives through our tax dollars. You can access them online through a password system from your local library, or go to a local university or high school and access them there. I know that Newsbank has an "email this article option". They're not charging you to email the article, so can you email a single article all day long?
I know that I can access a number of these archives in a number of ways, and a majority of Netizens should be able to achieve similar access. (If the selling consortium attempts to control this access, they can be easily smacked down with the ADA)
The playing field may have changed. ;-)
In the meantime, the group is barred from allowing its members to post full-text articles from The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.As an update to my PREVIOUS documentation (on 12/3/01) of this fact, once again, for the record, MANY left-wing websites have been posting (and CONTINUE to post) full-text articles from the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post - apparently with the knowledge and consent of those corporations.But the Los Angeles Slimes is A-OK with The Smirking Chimp posting full-text articles more than a year AFTER the "decision" by their pet judge. ;-)
And this practice continues, as recently as TODAY. See, for instance, an Los Angeles Times article by John Balzar called "Out of Step, but With a Big Swagger" posted online in all of its copyrighted FULL TEXT glory at:
www.Smirkingchimp.com
Post #135 FYI ping.
Any thoughts on this article, fellow pseudo-militant conservatives???
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.