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...
I tried it twice and got an error both times.(?)
Slight(ly Confused)OfTongue
So don't try anymore to pledge. Contact BadJoe, and he will clear up the mystery. Also, since we are conservatives, we will only charge your credit card once instead of several times!
Thanks and I'm sorry that you hit this glitch. Thanks for bringing it to my/our attention!
The only way the Congress can ever err on the subject of free speech is by abridging it. You cannot make it any more free the founders intended. The command: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to free speech" is self-evident, does not require interpretation, and should not be all that hard to comprehend. It means exactly what it says, plain and simple. Either the people have the right to completely free and uninhibited speech or they don't. The Constitution is forbidden the power to abridge that right, but they abridged it anyway. Why? What gives the Congress the power to abridge our guaranteed freedom?
Some people say your free speech rights are rightfully abridged by arguing that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. That is nonsense. You have the right to yell fire or anything else you please. You may be thrown out by an usher, or hauled off by a cop for creating a disturbance or causing a riot, or even get the crap beat out of you by a pissed off crowd, but you had the right to say it.
Same goes for libel or slander. You have the right to say or publish anything you want. If someone else claims that what you said or published damaged him in some way, and can prove it in court, then you may have to compensate him for his damages. But you had the right to say what ever is on your mind. God gave you that right and the Founders guaranteed that government can never take it from you.
In regards to copyright, sure the authors have a right to exclusive ownership of their works. You cannot publish books authored and copyrighted by others without permission. That's obvious to all, but we are not talking about books and we are not talking about publishing. We are talking about news accounts of crime and corruption and government abuse and politics and or other news or events that are important to we the people and we are talking about using them as source material for discussion. We are not talking about entering into the newspaper or publishing business and competing with the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or any other publisher. We are talking about posting news information on a bulletin board and talking about it.
I am just one man. I am not well educated. I am not rich enough to own a printing press or to publish newspapers. I cannot go to Washington to see what they are doing to me by witnessing congressional meetings first hand, and I cannot hire people to do it for me. That's totally impractical. I can and do purchase newspapers, but I find them very slanted and misleading.
I have a right to learn the truth about government and politics, especially since I know that they are screwing me every chance they get and the newspapers are lying about it. I want to know exactly what they are doing and what I can do about preventing them from continuing to abuse my rights, steal my money, and steal my freedom.
How do I do that? Well, I have put up a bulletin board. An electronic bulletin board. And I have a meeting forum. I hold townhall style meetings. I allow people to bring newspaper articles or other source materials into my townhall meeting room and post them to my bulletin board. Then I ask all participants in the meeting room to read them, study them, compare them, and comment upon them.
People who are much more knowledgeable on various topics than myself can study them and compare them to other postings on the bulletin board and or in the archives of the bulletin board and point out the lies or inconsistencies or reveal where fraud or abuse is taking place and inform the rest of us of the truth. We can all join together and discuss these items and through discussion perhaps agree on a course of action. When we find the truth about some crooked politician or some illegal government action, and we've decided on a course of action, we can assemble together and protest or petition the government to right the wrong.
This is exactly what the founders intended, and exactly how we should use news and government or political information and this is the people's right to free press, free speech, and peaceable assembly in action. This IS the first amendment!
What's worrisome to the traditional commercial news and media industry is that, due to advances in science and the useful arts brought about by just and proper application of patent and copyright laws, we have been given wondrous new tools and we can be more efficient about learning truth and we can spread it to a larger audience than ever before. This is what hurts the media conglomerates. They are not being damaged financially by our discussions here at all. We have become free of their monopoly hold over truth. They can no longer hide it or pass off trash as truth. We are exposing them and people are seeing it. We, and others like us, are destroying their credibility. Truth hurts!
So, yes, the Constitution works when properly interpreted and applied as intended. The authors and inventors have their property rights and they can realize benefit for their works and inventions, and we the people enjoy and exercise our unabridged right to free speech, and the only losers are those who seek to erode freedom and or advance their own corrupt version of truth.
Thank You God! And thank you Founders! You did your job well! Two centuries later and we are still a free people! But, just like you feared, the Congress has attempted to abridge or infringe or restrict or abuse many of our guaranteed freedoms. But you have give us the weapon of free speech to wield in the defense of liberty. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and can prevent much bloodshed. However, we do remember your advice, that the tree of Liberty must be nurtured from time to time by the blood of patriots, so we hold in reserve the last defense you have allowed us. If the pen is ever taken from us, the sword will definitely be its replacement.
What Elian Tells Us About Ourselves
By Edward Zehr
"They have become, in the fullest sense of the term, Weimar Republicans."
Oh no, the reader thinks upon seeing the subtitle of this piece, not another article about Elian. But this series of articles is only incidentally about Elian -- it's really about us and what is happening to us. The Elian affair is like a mirror that reflects our hidden face, the one we never identify with ourselves because we always imagine that it belongs to somebody else.
For example, I get e-mail from people who have chanced to read one or more of these articles and drop me a cordial line or two just to let me know what a numbskull I am. After all, the way I tell the story is not the way they have heard it. If my version were correct it would mean that they have been grossly misinformed, and the implications of that are too terrible to contemplate.
It would mean that in order to be properly informed they would have to stop skating over the surface of issues such as these, letting the anchor people do all the heavy lifting, and start doing their own thinking. But thinking can be kind of like work. Besides, a lot of people just don't quite have the hang of it. The raw material required to do one's own thinking consists of facts gathered from a wide variety of sources, not just the one that happens to materialize when the TV set is switched on.
The "facts" presented by the mass media are typically folded into a smarmy batter of tendentious fiction calculated to elicit a response from the viewer that will be useful in advancing the hidden agenda which the presstitutes are paid to promote. The viewer, who does not comprehend that he or she is being manipulated responds emotionally, as though watching a soap opera or a TV series. After all, most people have a lot more experience responding emotionally to TV plots than they have at thinking critically and analytically. The script writer manipulates the emotions of the audience who respond in a predictable fashion. The viewers are being conditioned to react in a certain way. The leap from the semi-conscious emotional response evoked by TV "entertainment" to the conditioned response elicited by the politically motivated propaganda inserted into "news" presentations is a short one.
THE FACE IN THE MIRROR
The black-shirted, brown-shirted and red-banner-waving totalitarians of the twentieth century missed the point on a grand scale. All that rough stuff is really unnecessary in building a totalitarian state. In fact, if overdone, it tends to give the game away. Goebbels was the one who had it right, not Himmler. Concentration camps are a drain on the economy. That doesn't mean that you cannot turn the occasional group of...
The Elian affair has truly given us a glimpse into the abyss of tyranny. The message that comes through loud and clear is that the system isn't working. The question that remains to be answered is whether we still possess the intelligence and fortitude necessary to fix it.
Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org
Actually, the case has not been decided, it's not even been heard yet. Just because some rookie liberal activist judge, appointed by the most corrupt president this country has ever had the displeasure of suffering through, and who was directly supported by plaintiff's editorial staff by the way, violated my right to trial by jury by summarily dismissing our primary defense does not make it decided and does not make it constitutional. In fact, the lower court's action is a direct violation of my civil liberties. Who knows, I may yet get the ACLU involved in this thing.
We should have been allowed to present our case in front of a jury. Evidenced by the size of the amount of judgement, this was no nickle and dime case. And the potential precedent set could change the face of modern copyright law forever, not to mention its impact on free speech. It should have been tried. What the heck was the judge afraid of? Was she afraid of costing her friends and political supporters, the plaintiffs, more of their money? Was she afraid that her friends might actually lose? Or that we would be wasting her time? Is this enough to justify summarily dismissing our primary defense? Shouldn't the little guy have his shot at justice? Or is it money, power and influence that sets the judicial agenda? There is no excuse for not hearing this case, complete with our full defense.
Now, I realize that this (referring to trial by jury) is not the way it's done in modern streamlined legal proceedings, especially when you do not have money to hire a large and powerful law firm, but again that is one of the reasons why we are here on Free Republic in the first place. We are challenging these illegal kangaroo courts and unconstitutional rulings. Where and when was our right to trial before jury repealed? Should we be deprived of our Constitutional rights simply for the purposes of court expediency and convenience? I thought that that was one of the primary purposes of government, to defend our individual rights and freedoms.
Furthermore, it was long ago realized that this case is a major first amendment issue. Regardless of who won or lost at the lower court, the case would've been appealed by the other side. And whoever loses at the appeal will attempt to get it before the Supreme Court, you can count on that. It will not have been "decided" until that point. Now, if we don't get there and or if we lose entirely, that still does not make it "decided" or the decision constitutional. The Court will have simply been wrong again (IMHO). The constitutionality of the question will just be put on hold until some other poor dumb sucker decides to risk it all by challenging the system again. Perhaps he'll have better luck. But that's the only way to force these issues and, hopefully, sooner or later, the Court will rule correctly. The fact of the matter is, at this time, the Constitution is more or less ignored by the Congress and the Courts.
Agreedy. People tend to notice when they're being beaten, a real "wake up" call. And THIS wimpy generation, so sensitive that it would start crying "I want my Mommy" at the first crunch of the jackboot (is that the word I want?), needs a subtler approach.
You see it everywhere: erosion of principle.
Some people say your free speech rights are rightfully abridged by arguing that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. That is nonsense. You have the right to yell fire or anything else you please. You may be thrown out by an usher, or hauled off by a cop for creating a disturbance or causing a riot, or even get the crap beat out of you by a pissed off crowd, but you had the right to say it. Same goes for libel or slander. You have the right to say or publish anything you want. If someone else claims that what you said or published damaged him in some way, and can prove it in court, then you may have to compensate him for his damages. But you had the right to say what ever is on your mind. God gave you that right and the Founders guaranteed that government can never take it from you.
So what you are saying is that a person has the God-given right to say whatever they please, they just need to be prepared to pay the consequenses if it causes side problems like riots, slander or some other damage. What kind of right is this? You either have a right to say something without consequenses or you do not. People have had this right under the most repressive regimes in the world. You can say whatever you want, but there may be consequenses - hehe.
You are saying that that freedom of speech is absolute, but then hedge that if you cause damage through the use of that right then you can be punished. That is not a right then.
In regards to copyright, sure the authors have a right to exclusive ownership of their works. You cannot publish books authored and copyrighted by others without permission. That's obvious to all, but we are not talking about books and we are not talking about publishing. We are talking about news accounts of crime and corruption and government abuse and politics and or other news or events that are important to we the people and we are talking about using them as source material for discussion. We are not talking about entering into the newspaper or publishing business and competing with the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or any other publisher. We are talking about posting news information on a bulletin board and talking about it.
Oddly enough, combating these papers by entering the publishing business is the very right that you actually have under the first amendment, as long as you do not use their copyrighted material to do it. I wish that posting copyrighted news stories was legal, I can even agree that your argument did have merit and was worthy of a court case. Both parties felt their rights were being denied and the judge made the call.
I am just one man. I am not well educated. I am not rich enough to own a printing press or to publish newspapers. I cannot go to Washington to see what they are doing to me by witnessing congressional meetings first hand, and I cannot hire people to do it for me. That's totally impractical. I can and do purchase newspapers, but I find them very slanted and misleading.
I agree that the media is biased to the left. However, blaming the media for our countries problems seems odd to me. These media outlets are using their first ammendment rights, and using them successfully to advance their political agenda. Is that not what these rights are about - advancing your own political agenda? These very same rights are available to you too , but because you are not able to compete with them you feel that you are due the right to take their property in order to level the playing field. This is kind of like affirmative action.
I have a right to learn the truth about government and politics, especially since I know that they are screwing me every chance they get and the newspapers are lying about it. I want to know exactly what they are doing and what I can do about preventing them from continuing to abuse my rights, steal my money, and steal my freedom. How do I do that? Well, I have put up a bulletin board. An electronic bulletin board. And I have a meeting forum. I hold townhall style meetings. I allow people to bring newspaper articles or other source materials into my townhall meeting room and post them to my bulletin board. Then I ask all participants in the meeting room to read them, study them, compare them, and comment upon them.
I like your bulletin board. You have done a great job. you have run into a legal obstacle. Deal with it. You can still follow the law and get most of what you want to accomplish done here . ( unless paying the 1 million dollars stops you dead).
People who are much more knowledgeable on various topics than myself can study them and compare them to other postings on the bulletin board and or in the archives of the bulletin board and point out the lies or inconsistencies or reveal where fraud or abuse is taking place and inform the rest of us of the truth. We can all join together and discuss these items and through discussion perhaps agree on a course of action. When we find the truth about some crooked politician or some illegal government action, and we've decided on a course of action, we can assemble together and protest or petition the government to right the wrong.
Bringing people together has been a great success that you have accomplished. There is no disputing that. You don't need to post copyrighted material to accomplish that though.
This is exactly what the founders intended, and exactly how we should use news and government or political information and this is the people's right to free press, free speech, and peaceable assembly in action. This IS the first amendment!
We do not reach the same conclusion here.
What's worrisome to the traditional commercial news and media industry is that, due to advances in science and the useful arts brought about by just and proper application of patent and copyright laws, we have been given wondrous new tools and we can be more efficient about learning truth and we can spread it to a larger audience than ever before. This is what hurts the media conglomerates. They are not being damaged financially by our discussions here at all. We have become free of their monopoly hold over truth. They can no longer hide it or pass off trash as truth. We are exposing them and people are seeing it. We, and others like us, are destroying their credibility. Truth hurts!
And you cannot accomplish anything here unless if you post the full text of a copyrighted article? It is all or nothing? You are saying that everything that you are doing here is completely dependent on posting copyrighted articles. I don't follow that. Every other aspect of this site is completely open to you to pursue in this country.
So, yes, the Constitution works when properly interpreted and applied as intended. The authors and inventors have their property rights and they can realize benefit for their works and inventions, and we the people enjoy and exercise our unabridged right to free speech, and the only losers are those who seek to erode freedom and or advance their own corrupt version of truth. Thank You God! And thank you Founders! You did your job well! Two centuries later and we are still a free people! But, just like you feared, the Congress has attempted to abridge or infringe or restrict or abuse many of our guaranteed freedoms. But you have give us the weapon of free speech to wield in the defense of liberty. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword and can prevent much bloodshed. However, we do remember your advice, that the tree of Liberty must be nurtured from time to time by the blood of patriots, so we hold in reserve the last defense you have allowed us. If the pen is ever taken from us, the sword will definitely be its replacement.
I am glad that you admit that we still are a free people. although this is a difficult admission for me to digest from you. You have spent this post saying how bad everything has become, and then conclude that we are indeed still free. If we are free - then where is the beef - for goodness sake ? I guess its just a whine - something we all like to do around here
No one answered about "where's clarity" because that is personal business between him and Jim. If you want to know ask either of them. How can I answer that question? Whatever I say I'll bet a get nice note from some attorney threatening to sue me. I'll have to put it with the rest. Why don't YOU tell us why clarity is gone? Suggestion: Use extreme caution because I think you got about half the story and you wouldn't want to end up in court with a defamation suit as has been threatened against others.
BTW - My thread had nothing to do with clarity or his skill as an attorney. It was a response aimed at AF attempts to frighten and intimidate Forum participants. Be careful AE you are not being used as a tool to get people to make incriminating remarks to be used in future legal actions.
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.