The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post sued the operators of the site for copyright infringement. The court ruled that even though the site didn't charge user fees, it could be considered a commercial operation because it solicited donations and posted advertisements for other politically oriented sites.Aside from the fact that the judge actually ruled that since FR is a dot.com, it's commercial, the argument as presented above was the most specious and easily-defeated part of the ruling.
More difficult was the contention that FR was exercising First Amendment rights in discussion of news relevant to citizens' interests, and, as the article states, the lower court decision played straight into it:
Presumably, the court's decision leaves open the possibility that noncommercial copying and posting of news articles is a fair use. If so, it would be legal, but would it also be ethical? [Legal scholars] suggest that so long as the reproduction of material doesn't exploit the work commercially, it is ethical. News organizations might counter that all copying without permission is unethical.Very nice.Resolving this dilemma might turn on the question of whether or not one considers news to be a different kind of product than entertainment or other physical products. C. Edwin Baker, a prominent legal scholar and First Amendment theorist, has argued that news is an important public good, necessary for public discourse and personal enlightenment.
As to the specious objections to deep linking, my, how the technology that empowers them makes them squirm.