[BRL]

Revising and extending my remarks, as far as that goes, show me where in the U.S. Constitution is the power granted to the Congress to restrict free speech even if a person sells access to or profits from it. You might say it's in the commerce clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Well, regardless of any definition or interpretation of, or the intent of that particular clause, the first amendment amends and supersedes it. The Congress still does not have constitutional authority or power to abridge the right of the people to free speech, regardless of copyright and regardless of commerce.

I may be mistaken here , but here goes:

The constitution was written. At some point in time the congress passed a law that clarified the constitution regarding fair use of copyrights. This congressional intervention erred on the side of free speech, not on the side of copyright protection. This congressional intervention is the very basis on which you have argued against copyright protection. Now you blame congressional intervention for all our woes?

What am I missing here?

[Jim Robinson]

"The constitution was written. At some point in time the congress passed a law that clarified the constitution regarding fair use of copyrights. This congressional intervention erred on the side of free speech, not on the side of copyright protection. This congressional intervention is the very basis on which you have argued against copyright protection. Now you blame congressional intervention for all our woes?"

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.