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.
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.
... 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.
A well said BUMP.
'nuff said.
But seriously....I'm encouraged to find out from this thread, that liberalass judges in California are often struck down on appeal. I had no idea.