Posted on 12/02/2001 10:09:56 PM PST by Bob J
Nothing...thats what it means.
The afholes have been trying to scare FReepers with this little bit information. Here is my opinion on the subject.
As you all know, the Washington Post and LA Times sued FR LLC and Jim to stop it from posting full text articles. The basis of FR's attorneys defense rested on the fair use clause. Unfortunately, Jim drew probably the worst judge he could...Margaret Morrow, a Clinton nominee, whose appointment was held up for a long time by Republicans due to here obvious left wing opinions.
The plaintiffs attorneys filed a pre trial motion to squelch the fair use defense and Judge Morrow ruled affirmatively. That basically took all the guts out of the Jim's defense. At that point, Jim's most prudent course of action was to stipulate to a decision against him. That way the case could get into the appeal with the least cost. This may have actually worked for the best since if Jim won, the WP was certainly going to appeal. It would also follow that whoever lost the appeal would then appeal to the SC. It has been estimated going directly to appeal may have saved Jim and FR 200-300k. Now, it may only cost 20-30k to get all the way to the Supremes.
Once Jim stipulated, they were allowed to ask for a dollar judgement. When Jim found out it was 1 million, he said "Why not make it 500 million. Hell, make it a billion!" The fact is Jim nor FR LLC have any money. What is raised during the quarterly FReepathons is used during the next 3 months for expenses. The LAT and WP know this. I doubt if they expect to ever see a dime of it. The judgement allows them to put a nice round number on their balance sheet to offset the obvious huge expenses this case is chewing up on their P&L's. Can you imagine the public relations nightmare for a multi billion dollar corporation to going after a disabled vet for a million bucks he doesn't have? How about a billion...heheh.
Obviously, some donations go to legal expenses, as in any business, but Jim is trying to minimize the cost. So, when an afhole throws that million dollar judgement in your face, as if you are or they expect you to pay for it, say what Jim said, "Thank you sir, make it a billion, please!"
Ha! What loosers...
Speaking of reindeer here comes my favorite one. 
Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year, Official link: (Thread #4)
For regular snail mail donations:
FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
(link for monthly credit card donations)
(Reindeer says, "Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com")
I do not see anything in the U.S. Constitution that gives "society" any protection or power over the rights of the individual stomping his feet, as you describe. In fact, the Bill of Rights gives the individual power, rights, and protection over and from society and government. We the people grant the government its limited powers and we consent to be governed by the rule of law, however, at no time did we intend to relinquish all personal or individual freedom. It often takes an individual stomping his feet in front of the Supreme Court to jerk your so-called society back to reality.
The first amendment is also part and parcel to the framework of the U.S. Constitution and it amends and supersedes the copyright clause. Among other things, it guarantees that the Congress cannot abridge (deprive or diminish) the people's individual right to freedom of speech, free press and rights to assemble and criticize the government.
The copyright clause:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;Grants the Congress the power to enact law assigning copyright protection to authors of works promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. No problem.
But....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.In other words, the first amendment amends the Constitution (including amending the copyright clause) and allows for the unabridged right of the people to free speech, free press, free assembly and redress of grievance, regardless of copyright or any other restriction.
Thus, the congress cannot diminish or restrict the people's superior right to use whatever form of expression they wish to critique, praise, promote, campaign, petition, defend, protest, research, teach, learn, report or otherwise spread information or news regarding government, law, public policy, politics, or any other public or government affair, place, object, person, theory, or event, or anything else, at anytime, anywhere, which may or may not be important to or affect the interests of we the people, and especially when it pertains to the preservation of the Constitution, the Republic and Liberty itself and or the prevention of tyranny.
The U.S. Constitution severely restricts government powers while maximizing personal freedom and the individual rights of the people. This was the founders overriding intent. In other words, the founders designed a system of government that clearly protects and guarantees my right to free speech and prohibits the Congress from passing any law depriving me of that right. In this regard, our individual rights are superior to the Congressional right (or power) to control or suppress. That's the very definition of freedom and it is what the founders were striving to guarantee.
Also found in the Constitution are the rules governing Constitutional amendment. They are well defined. And they have not been amended. Now I would like you to tell me when and where the U.S. Constitution was amended to repeal the restrictions placed upon the Congress from infringing upon our individual right to free speech as guaranteed in the first amendment. And or, show me where and when the Constitution was amended granting the Congress the power to unilaterally amend the Constitution without the consent of the people.
You can't. The Congress simply does not have the constitutional power to take it upon itself to unilaterally, without benefit of duly passed and ratified constitutional amendment, enact laws contrary to, diminishing, depriving, or otherwise restricting our guaranteed individual rights to free speech as defined in the first amendment.
The Copyright act as written, because it abridges the right of the people to free speech, is itself unconstitutional. Knowing this, the Congress attempted to strike a balance between the rights of the authors and the rights and interests of the people and they called it the "fair use" exemption.
Fair use attempts to allow the people the free use of copyrighted works, as long as that use fits within its very poorly defined and vague built-in restrictions.
However, where is the authorization for the power of the Congress to place any restriction at all on free speech. The answer is, it simply does not possess any such power.
It doesn't matter how carefully or cleverly the Congress words the copyright act or fair use parameters, if it restricts, diminishes, deprives or otherwise abridges in any way our guaranteed right to political free speech, then it is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court should get to hear the case. It would be very interesting indeed. But it is possible for even the Supremes to err. That's what ammendments and constitutional conventions are for, even waiting for new appointments to the court and a slightly diferent case.
I still believe in the system. But even for those who do not, until such a thing goes entirely through the system, there is no point in giving up, unless you simply lack the courage to find the ultimate answer. You have to have patience, persistance, and faith- there are no better man-made systems in which to have faith, and no better way to fight than with patience and persistance.
No, I do not. That's my whole point. Modern government has shredded the Constitution. What they haven't reinterpreted, they've written off as obsolete for modern times. That was then, this is now. They try to solve every problem by creating more law or more government agency, or granting itself powers out of thin air, and or restricting individual rights regardless of constitutional prohibitions. The first amendment vs copyright is just one example of bad law and bad precedent piled one on top of the other until the original meanings and intent of the underlying copyright clause and the first amendment guarantee are completely obliterated. Modern day legal theory is replacing centuries old bedrock constitutional principle. It's now whoever has the most power, money, influence or legal smarts to create, spin and push modern legal theory wins out.
The individual rights to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment are all but gone. The fourth destroyed by black garbed, hooded storm troopers and IRS thugs. And the fifth, sixth, etc., follow suit right down to the complete elimination of the ninth and tenth. And all without constitutional amendment. There has not been legal repeal of these rights, they've just been twisted away through legal theory and misinterpretation, and then buried under piles of bad legal precedent.
No one wants to hear that the copyright laws enacted over the last 40 years or so are in complete violation of our constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. What were free and constitutionally guaranteed rights from the 1790s until just a few years ago is suddenly declared illegal by modern legal theorists. The cases based on new law have already been argued and the precedents set. The Constitutional guarantees have been lost and buried. No need for amendment, just erode them away. Powerful commercial conglomerates have paid for, lobbied for, and have been granted monopoly over individual rights, and this cannot be undone until and unless we get a Supreme Court that will put the brakes on, or, even better yet, jerk the rug out. And it's going to take a lot of work by a lot of people before this can happen. Gotta do it by getting the right people elected.
As an aside, this case is a good example of why the "inalienable rights" approach to government, as proposed by many libertarians here, is flawed.
But we are going to have to be very persistant, thinking in much longer terms than we as Americans are accustomed to doing.
Much of our failure is simply that we have allowed others to educate our kids... and never checked up to see what others have been putting into their heads. Generations of that has done its damage, and it is going to take generations to undo it.
At the same time, bear in mind that while we have lost much of our freedom from the erosion, as Jim rob pointed out...
There was a time in our early history when there was less freedom here than now. 'Big government' might not have been the boogeyman then, but there were definitely boogeymen out there, and it had to do with the pure ignorance, racism and greed that abounded, and lack of concern for anything greater than one's self. Same problem as not, but now that is manifested more in the government wanting to opress people's individual freedoms for the sake of group rights (and group votes) and more ignorance and greed on everyone's part.
Think about it:
Until after the Civil War there was legal slavery, and not just of black people, but also whites, as indentured servants; and even the whites who were so bound, were sometimes even worse off than an out-and-out slave. they were bound by perpetual debt that kept them servants, tricksters who defrauded people, etc. And with virtually no protections. Native americans were the subject of kidnappings too, early on, but they made poor slaves since they could escape and blend in, and sometimes would fight to the death instead of submit. We don't have to fear slavery or debt-slavery any more.
Until 1913 or so, much of the population of the US- Native Americans, including citizens, were shunted into camps barely fit for human habitation, places where they had no independance at all and no way to be free in any sense of the word. And some remain there today, though things are finally improving as they educate themselves and break away from the dependency that was thrust on them.
Property rights protections ended as soon as a stronger person killed you and your family, or waited until men went off to war to prey upon families and with legal or illegal tactics, took everything they owned, or just outfoxed you in court because you were the wrong color or because he had better relations with the judge.
Property rights were made a mockery in the case of the Cherokee, who even won their case in the Supreme court but were denied by a corrupt president and thousands of greedy citizens... and were sent on a march that killed them in droves.
Treaties were openly flouted. People were defrauded at every turn by every sort of shyster. Regulations were used to cheapen people's lands and to usurp, not much different from now but more common.
Railroads and industry took what they wanted, bought judges and officials and votes with stunning regularity. they kept people like slaves, mostly cheap immigrant labor tied to company housing and company stores and loads of debt from company expenses.
Governemnt used immigrants as cannon fodder and industry cheap labor against rebellious southerners to opress legitimate state's rights, whose southern economy used slave labor to fight for their version of freedom. Both were right and both were wrong.
People were defrauded afterwards for being on the losing side, and the people given the property of the losers were in turn ripped off in courts and with fear.
Water rights in the west became convoluted; range wars and such ensued. Ecological damage was severe and the living was very poor, and lives very short. Poor farming practices brought on the dust bowl and mass migrations of people fleeing what they had wrought.
Read some of the history- diaries from the time- it was brutal, third-world kind of living. I'm not so sure we are worse off or better off. I know we COULD be better off if we'd kept the faith.
Back then we had the right system, without all the hamstringing and red tape and bureaucracy, but it was ignored because it was inherently weak, so weak it was for decades little better than anarchy. Now, we have a system encumbered and bastardized, whose worst laws are obeyed rigorously and without question while its best attributes are ignored or neglected or even considered anathema.
We know it can be better, but we know people will put up with a lot before they try. The way to stop it is to work on the next generation like you have never worked before, to speak out and never grow apathetic or let the feeling of doom overwhelm and freeze you into apathy or surrender.
I can't really verbalize a good response to you - but I feel sorry for the "I give up" tone you give off in your post.
Can you please list all the rights that we have and the order of importance they have. I see that free speech trumps property ownership ( according to your model . In my model I would probably put property rights above free speech, but in reality the court system looks at each case independently and tries to strike the balance on a case by case basis) but how about all our other rights. This gets very confusing when arguing about how our country should be run when arguing about rights , inalienable rights , and superior rights.
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.