Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NEWSPAPERS FIGHT FREE SPEECH
Fiedor Report On the News #278 ^ | 6-23-02 | Doug Fiedor

Posted on 06/22/2002 8:19:09 AM PDT by forest

Here's a big news flash y'all will probably never hear from the establishment news: The LA Times and Washington Post settled their lawsuit against the Free Republic web site.

Now, for readers who do not happen to know about the Free Republic web site(1), all I can say is go look. What you will find there is the modern "Liberty Tree." That is, folks post news articles and commentary on the site and invite others to comment.

Well, here's the rub: Most of the many thousands of people visiting Free Republic daily are rather conservative. Much of the published news has a decisively liberal bent. Which means, many of the folks visiting Free Republic are apt to poke a little fun at some of the mainline media's claptrap.

In the mix were these thousand pound gorillas lurking in the background -- who happen to have unlimited finances to spend for attorneys because that is a tax write- off for them. They took offense to the comments posted by visitors of the Free Republic about how they report and comment on the news. That is, they are allowed to publish an opinion. They just do not want us, the great unwashed, publicly commenting on their published material.

As we stated above, the "they" in this case are the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times -- two major players in the realm of far left journalism. Which means, when they combined their legal staffs and together bankrolled a lawsuit against a private web site, they came with considerable clout.

On the other side is Jim Robinson, a semi-retired man who is the owner and operator of this modern day Liberty Tree known as The Free Republic. Jim provides a site for others to post news and comment on the news. Nothing more. All he asks of visitors is that they be somewhat polite to each other and about what they say about the news posted.

In court, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times said that the visitors violated their copyright by posting their published newspaper articles at the site. They have a point, of course. But, the problem is, it is not a very valid point. Because, once their writers string together a group of words and the corporation sells whatever newspapers they can peddle, that particular string of words will not be used again. The marketing of those words was completed.

Besides, just like the Founding Fathers of our country used to post news articles and messages on what was called the local "Liberty Tree" back then, so do we have the perfect right to do so electronically.

Who owns the "news," anyway? If the media thinks they do, we have a major problem! Furthermore, if the "news" is common property, it would seem that the "common people" have a right to comment on it -- no matter who relates it. That is what is known as free speech.

Besides, as said above, they were done with it. They sold their newspapers. In doing so, they put that "news" in the public domain. They received their money.

So, after they publish the "news," we are not supposed to share it with friends and discuss it? Apparently, that is exactly the point of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. We are to read their words, take those words as gospel, and never show anyone else what they said.

Okay, maybe I'm getting a little close to the edge of silly here. But, so were "they." They sell newspapers in the millions, but take legal action simply because a few people lambaste their liberalism on Free Republic. So much for free speech, eh!

Here sits one writer who will never again believe anything those corporations say about free speech or freedom of the press. They may want it for personal gratification, but they have proven to the nation that they have no interest in freedom of the press and speech as a concept.

The cold hard fact is that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the premier newspaper publisher of that era, Benjamin Franklin, all encouraged folks to post articles and news on their respective Liberty Trees. That is our history; our American heritage.

Jim Robinson took it all in stride, probably relieved that stupid event was finally over. In his public reply to visitors of Free Republic, Jim said, in part:

"Well, my fingers are not cold and dead and my keyboard has not been ripped away. While this is not entirely a win for Free Republic, neither is it a crushing defeat. Free Republic is alive and well and the fight against liberalism continues on. It's a crying shame that the hallowed words of the WP/LAT will no longer grace our pages, but, somehow, I am sure we will manage to live on without them.

"And despite what our detractors may say, we have not committed any crimes or broken any laws and we have not admitted to any guilt. We have negotiated a mutual agreement and settlement with the LAT/WP and have agreed upon satisfactory terms for continuing forward without having to spend the rest of our lives in court."

Grace under pressure, we call it. Because, the fact is that the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times each ripped off Free Republic for $5,000 in damages.

But, there's a fix for that -- a really pertinent (or perhaps "impertinent") fix. That is, all who have the ability to string a few words together in a readable fashion should continuously paraphrase and lambaste the lead editorials of these two newspapers. Because, even if the folks at Free Republic can no longer post the liberal claptrap of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, there is nothing in the world stopping them from publicly ridiculing their brand of socialism.

They deserve it.

-----------------------------

1.http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

 

 END


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Free Republic; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: farleftjournalism; freerepublic; jimrobinson; lambastewpandlat; latimes; lawsuit; modernlibertytree; publicdomain; tenthoubucks; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Just like the Founding Fathers of our country used to post news articles and messages on what was called the local "Liberty Tree" back then, so do we have the perfect right to do so electronically.

Who owns the "news," anyway? If the media thinks they do, we have a major problem! Furthermore, if the "news" is common property, it would seem that the "common people" have a right to comment on it -- no matter who relates it. That is what is known as free speech.

Here sits one writer who will never again believe anything those corporations say about free speech or freedom of the press. They may want it for personal gratification, but they have proven to the nation that they have no interest in freedom of the press and speech as a concept.

Jim Robinson took it all in stride: "And despite what our detractors may say, we have not committed any crimes or broken any laws and we have not admitted to any guilt."

All who have the ability to string a few words together in a readable fashion should continuously paraphrase and lambaste the lead editorials of these two newspapers. Because, even if the folks at Free Republic can no longer post the liberal claptrap of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, there is nothing in the world stopping them from publicly ridiculing their brand of socialism. They deserve it.

1 posted on 06/22/2002 8:19:10 AM PDT by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: forest
AMEN!
2 posted on 06/22/2002 8:28:32 AM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
FREEDOM TREE BUMP!
3 posted on 06/22/2002 8:35:42 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
Yep. Once the newspaper is sold, the article (content) gets to line kitty pans, bird cages, wrap fish, start fireplaces, and fill up the local dump. The way I see it, the newspapers are foolish. I never started reading "The Nation" until I saw something here about it. parsy.

4 posted on 06/22/2002 8:39:40 AM PDT by parsifal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
bump
5 posted on 06/22/2002 8:42:11 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Hi. Ping....
This "Fiedor Report On the News #278" is about the Free Republic/LA Times/WP case and you are also quoted...so, I thought you might want to check it out. Take care.
6 posted on 06/22/2002 8:50:59 AM PDT by Born in a Rage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
There's an old story about a farmer who was taken to court for calling the queen a pig. He was found guilty and fined. He then asked the judge for some clarification:
"Your Honor, does this mean it is illegal for me to call the queen a pig?"
The judge responded, "Yes. If you do it again you will be imprisoned."
The farmer then asked, "Well, sir, is it permissible to call a pig a queen?"
The judge thought a minute, and said he saw no reason to prohibit that.
The farmer turned, tipped his hat to the queen, and said "Good day, Queen."


Maybe people should write their own articles, and attribute them to the Post and the Times? That would be abiding by the agreement.
Nah, that sounds like a liberal ploy. But it sure is tempting.
7 posted on 06/22/2002 8:52:52 AM PDT by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
BUMP
8 posted on 06/22/2002 8:55:28 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
Why wasn't "fair use" enough to emancipate Free Republic from the grip of the LAme Times/Wash Pist?
9 posted on 06/22/2002 8:58:13 AM PDT by RainDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
They may want it for personal gratification, but they have proven to the nation that they have no interest in freedom of the press and speech as a concept.

They only want to cite "free speech" when it's convenient for them.

10 posted on 06/22/2002 9:00:15 AM PDT by callisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: forest
I don't suppose the ACLU was in there defending the Free Republic's free speech rights.

I am saddened that this was settled out of court.

The bright side is we can now easily misquote the LAT/WP and chalk it up to misinterpretation or personal opinion as to what they meant to say. This has to be worse for LAT/WP, although it is much more satisfying to hang them with their own words.
12 posted on 06/22/2002 9:25:13 AM PDT by SLOTownConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest; yall; Jim Robinson
Doug F writes:

"But, there's a fix for that -- a really pertinent (or perhaps "impertinent") fix. That is, all who have the ability to string a few words together in a readable fashion should continuously paraphrase and lambaste the lead editorials of these two newspapers. Because, even if the folks at Free Republic can no longer post the liberal claptrap of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, there is nothing in the world stopping them from publicly ridiculing their brand of socialism.




Question; - can we be 'impertinant', and 'paraphrase' an entire LAT/WP editorial, as individuals, -- on one thread ?

For example, -- say the original poster quotes a lead paragraph or so, with a link & his comments. -- Then each subseqent respondent could post another excerpt, along with more comment. -- Soon, the entire editorial would be on record.
An impertinant method, to be sure. But a perfect way, imo, to publicly ridicule these clowns.

-- Can we do it without getting FR in another legal mess?
13 posted on 06/22/2002 9:32:38 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLOTownConservative
Here sits one writer who will never again believe anything those corporations say about free speech or freedom of the press. .......

More and more people, even some liberals, are coming to realize how biased the leftist press is. They show bias by omission, commission and placement of articles. Last week's thirtieth anniversary orgy of self-satisfaction over Watergate was disgusting...and irrelevant to most Americans.
14 posted on 06/22/2002 9:33:44 AM PDT by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: forest

Liberty Tree

by Thomas Paine

In a chariot of light from the regions of day,
The Goddess of Liberty came;

Ten thousand celestials directed the way
And hither conducted the dame.

A fair budding branch from the gardens above,
Where millions with millions agree,

She brought in her hand as a pledge of her love,
And the plant she named Liberty Tree.

The celestial exotic struck deep in the ground,
Like a native it flourished and bore;

The fame of its fruit drew the nations around,
To seek out this peaceable shore.

Unmindful of names or distinction they came,
For freemen like brothers agree;

With one spirit endued, they one friendship pursued,
And their temple was Liberty Tree.

Beneath this fair tree, like the patriarchs of old,
Their bread in contentment they ate,

Unvexed with the troubles of silver and gold,
The cares of the grand and the great.

With timber and tar they Old England supplied,
And supported her power on the sea;

Her battles they fought, without getting a groat,
For the honor of Liberty Tree.

But hear, O ye swains, 'tis a tale most profane,
How all the tyrannical powers,

Kings, Commons, and Lords, are uniting amain
To cut down this guardian of ours;

From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms
Through the land let the sound of it flee,

Let the far and the near, all unite with a cheer,
In defence of our Liberty Tree.

15 posted on 06/22/2002 9:44:06 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sistergoldenhair
ping
16 posted on 06/22/2002 9:47:57 AM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
The only thing I miss about the Washington Post not being on FR is not being able to vent my intelligent brain against Richard Cohen, the town clown of DC -- or any other town he happens to disgrace with his presence.
17 posted on 06/22/2002 9:54:30 AM PDT by swampfox98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest; Jim Robinson
We can still do what we've been doing since this lawsuit first got rolling.

A quote from Jim Robinson in his settlement announcement:

"Unless we receive prior written permission on an article by article basis, Free Republic agrees to continue posting only excerpts (as allowed by fair use) and links from any of the LAT/WP or related publications."

My question would be: Where can we get a listing of related publications?

18 posted on 06/22/2002 9:58:01 AM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest; Doug Fiedor; the irate magistrate; Michael Gallutia; muggs; Republic; DebMcB; Jeff Head; ...
Who owns the "news," anyway? If the media thinks they do, we have a major problem!

Yes, we do have a major problem and that's why FreeRepublic continues to grow each week, blemishes and all.

I hope FReeper Doug Fiedor visits this thread.

19 posted on 06/22/2002 10:09:14 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
What I don't understand is, those sites publish their articles/columns on the net. If they do not want the articles to float around, be discussed, and possibly be disagreed with, they shouldn't post them on there. Or, they should charge to have access to their sites. Never have I taken an article from the newspaper and retyped it. I also know from running a website of my own, that people take things from that site and use it on their own sites. That is the nature of the net. Are we to believe that a group of men sitting in the local eatery are not allowed to take an article and discuss it over coffee? It is interesting to note that they only took to court the people who disagree with them. If they are worried about people discussing their articles, they need to go after DU.com....then again, that would be getting rid of the choir.
20 posted on 06/22/2002 10:46:47 AM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson