Skip to comments.Will You Help Take Washington Back?
Posted on 06/24/2011 2:35:43 PM PDT by mrsroman
In doing further research on my constitutional inquiry into whether or not unions & corporations should have the same inalienable rights that I do as an individual, I have found a resolution introduced by a state senator in Washington that calls for a constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations and in turn unions are not persons according to U.S. law. A statewide grassroots group in Washington wants to know what you think.
I think that a constitutional amendment of any kind should be considered carefully. I hold the U.S. Constitution in a place of great esteem and in my pocketbook for quick reference. But, I think this is a situation that calls for a discussion on a constitutional amendment about the rights of human beings as individuals & corporations and unions as artificial entities. I cant help but wonder, did our courts go too far?
With the Citizens United decision that came down from the Supreme Court last year, corporations and unions have essentially been granted some of the same constitutional rights that we have as individuals when it comes to free speech and elections. I think that there should be a clear difference between us as individuals and entities that are created and authorized by the state. I feel that my concerns are in line with the founders when it comes to the potential for the economic sphere to wield significant influence in the political sphere with no effective system of checks and balances.
What do you think? Take Back Washington is a grassroots organization standing for limited government, fiscal responsibility and the constitutional values on which our country was founded. They are based in the state where this resolution was introduced. Would you take a moment to participate in their 1 question poll?
As you know, corporations and unions as entities are not able to cast a vote in our election system but, they are entitled to making donations to those running for public office wielding significant influence over the whole process. Over the years, we have watched unions donate significant sums of money to the candidates they chose what about the individuals who provided some of that money through dues and other fees? Those people dont get a say in where that money goes and what candidate is supported and they should! The conservative movement has seen a flurry of activity in recent years in an effort to give union workers more rights in this regard by working to overturn the Employee Free Choice Act, aka card check. While this battle is far from over, I am glad to see groups like Alliance for Worker Freedom standing up for union workers rights.
Corporations also donate significant sums of money to candidates during the election season. Well what about the shareholders of those corporations? They are certainly not casting a vote or engaged in a process to determine which candidates receive political donations from their corporation but, they should be! I support an effort similar to the fight to overturn card check legislation to call on corporations to have a more transparent process involving their shareholders when it comes to making decisions on political donations. I think that individual shareholders should certainly have a say in how their corporation is spending money when it comes to the political sphere.
Let Take Back Washington know what you think about the rights of unions and corporations through their 60 second poll.
Let Take Back Washington know what you think
By clicking on your site, correct? Providing you some hits, right?
You know.. we've actually heard of "advertising" here. Would you care to donate to Free Republic to advertise your site here?
Hello? Is this thing on?
I only clicked on this thread to see your response, lol.
Yeah, take them both back: Washington DC AND Washington State. While your at it take back Oregon and California. They all belong to the Communists now.
My blog has no advertising AND I’m a monthly donor. Unfortunately my next article will be posted on a site requiring excerpting, so I hope you’ll go easy on me. :)
Why not post it here in full?
Are you worried that you might sue yourself?
No, silly. My article will be published on a syndicated news site. LOL
Sorry, FReeping from my phone must limit my ability to communicate effectively. Perhaps it’s the beer. :)
Do you mean that Horowitzian craphole or LizBlain?
Either way, if you are the author nothing prevents you from posting the content here.
Even if it’s lame or stolen or if you have spent twenty minutes re-wording it.
Please, it’s a blog post. Let’s not enable the fantasy.
Not Horowitz’s, so if the site is listed on FR’s excerpt list, which it is, then I assume even the author’s posting of it here must be excerpted. If I’m incorrect then I will gladly post it in its entirety. Do you know the answer?
You indicated that you were to be the "author".
You wish to hide behind an excerpt list to get blog hits? Why?
Is that what Free Republic is to you? A "hit farm"?
How about you just write your stuff HERE and screw the blog?
I'll be Free Republic gets more views than whatever diseased blog you may "write" on.
I hope that no conservatives think that Washington DC is a football to be won in a political skirmish or that once you have it you have actually won something worth having. The place needs to be ignored, shunned and shut down. The salvation of the US rests on making Washington DC irrelevant and powerless all except for, perhaps, the national defense, and even their I am of divided minds.
What part “syndicated news site on FR’s excerpt only list” don’t you get or are you just an antagonistic AH to everyone? The article won’t be crossposted to my blog. It’s an A.R.T.I.C.L.E. on a news site.
I asked your opinion since you appear to be the ringleader of the posting police here & assumed you know the answer..Now, do you or don’t you know?
First off, Zippy.. you don't quiz me. I'm not the one trying to scam hits from Free Republic.
Know that, learn it well.
If you have written something and have the opportunity to post it
on some blog.. good for you. Mental patients can do the same in the Rec area.
If this blog is on the excerpt list, I'd advise you to post the entry right here
first, in full. Is that too difficult for you? If so, why?
I'm not providing you any blog hits. So if you want your "writing" here
and wish for it ALL to be read, what could be simpler than posting it here?
Don't be a pimp, be a contributor.
I asked in all politeness. You and others on FR who behave in similar fashion reflect negatively on this site and conservatives, in general. I’m not after blog hits...It’s a hardcore news article, not blog post, and I hoped to share the research at a time when conservatives need all the ammunition we can get against the 0 administration.
What seems to be preventing you from posting it here then?
I hoped to share the research at a time when conservatives need all the ammunition we can get against the 0 administration.
Yeah. Share it here, or somewhere else where we need to pay you a hit for it?
Im not after blog hits.
Then you'll post it right here. In full.
You serve your purpose at times HG, but overall you degenerate the quality of this site. I asked if you knew if an author whose work was posted at an excerpt-only site could post said article in its entirety here with no adverse effects to FR and all I get is BS grief from you. You, alone, are enough to cost this site lots of financial contributions from existing and potential donors.
See? You can post your opinions right here, no need for a blog.
You can even cry to Jim without a blog.
What’s the stinkin’ blog for anyway?
Depending on where Callisto gets the article published, they **COULD** sue Free Republic, and I don't want to see something like that happen when Callisto asked a valid question trying to get an answer.
Based on the “works done for hire” doctrine, in most cases, the author of an article does **NOT** retain copyright once it's been published, whether that publication is in a book, magazine, newspaper, website, or some other format.
“Works done for hire” generally become the copyrighted property of the person or organization that commissioned them unless otherwise specified by an employment or freelancing contract. If Callisto is being paid for articles published on someone else’s website, even though she's the author, she no longer owns the copyright unless she has something in writing specifying that she retains copyright. If she's not being paid, the website owner may or may not own copyright depending on whether noncash compensation changed hands, but that's a question for the lawyers in the absence of a written agreement.
Here's three possible solutions that could make everybody happy.
1. About a half-decade ago, the newspaper for which I then worked had a freelancer who was retired from Army Public Affairs, was writing a book, and wanted to retain copyright. We wrote up a contract specifying that the freelancer would retain copyright but the newspaper would have exclusive reproduction rights for a 30-day period. Callisto, if you're a professional freelancer, it's worth the money to spend a couple of hundred dollars to get your lawyer — NOT the publisher's lawyer — to write up a contract like this. If writing is what you do for a living, get the legal stuff handled before somebody gets mad and threatens to take you to court. Lawyers can protect you from really, really bad problems.
2. Callisto could ask the website owner for written permission to post the article in full on Free Republic since they probably own the copyright if they're paying her. If they say yes, end of problem. Even if Callisto isn't being paid for her work, that's probably best if the publisher wants to retain copyright.
3. Callisto could ask for a written statement from the website that she retains copyright which includes an acknowledgment that she intends to post it in full on Free Republic and possibly elsewhere. That would likely be the best solution if Callisto wants to reprint her article somewhere else down the road, **ESPECIALLY** if she wants to ever be paid for this same article in the future.
Again, I'm trying to help. Please don't flame me... this isn't my fight, but I don't want to see Free Republic sued when there are easy ways to prevent that problem from happening.
You’re probably right.
I just get damned sick of folks who write stuff posting it
in full all over creation but excerpting it here on Free Republic.
The vast majority of them do it to get blog hits, treating us as a hit farm.
I get a bit obsessive about it sometimes.
People who own something — whether it's a website or a newspaper or any other business — get to set the rules and I have never disputed that Free Republic has every right to mandate full-text rather than excerpts of articles.
There was a day that pretty much nobody needed to know about the details of copyright law except book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Anyone with enough money to own a printing press also had enough money to pay a lawyer, and because of that, the problems pretty much took care of themselves. Our key cases in litigation of copyright law came about because major publishers with names like Hearst sued each other in the 1800s and early 1900s over loopholes or perceived ambiguities in the law, and well-paid lawyers did a good job of arguing the merits of each side. Sometimes the Congress amended the copyright law; more often, the issues were left to the courts which in those days were more interested in interpreting the law than making new laws.
Today, however, we now run a very serious risk of horrible legal precedents being set because large but dying newspapers have a strong economic incentive to sue website owners who don't have enough money to mount as effective of a legal defense. There's a big drive being mounted by Rupert Murdoch of FOX News to push for paid content rather than advertiser-supported websites, and a bad precedent with a lawsuit won against a website whose owner doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyer bills could result in really, really bad precedents which would not have happened if the two parties were more equally matched and able to afford good legal defenses.
Sometimes the guy who wins in court is the one who can pay the best lawyer, not the one with the best case.
Thank you very much for the informative reply. I do freelance my work and thus receive payment for my articles and, to date, still suffer under the clause “excerpt only” for crossposts to my blog, but in this situation cannot crosspost due to the nature of my existing contract, thus my question.
As a strong conservative and monthly donor I am committed to seeing the information posted to this site reach as many conservatives as possible and honestly meant it as a serious question when posed to humblegunner. I wrote for Horowitz’s NewsReal until the site closed and copied some of my articles in entirety to my blog thereafter not knowing how long the articles will remain available, but my current position doesn’t offer that luxury. I will take your points into consideration the next time I become contractually obligated to an online source. Thank you, again!
And, for the record, I’ve never posted any article I’ve written “in full” anywhere except the website that paid me for said article and the two vanities I wrote over a 10-year timeframe on Free Republic. Articles for which I did not receive payment that were posted to my personal blog HAVE been posted to FR in their entirety. Perhaps one day you’ll realize we’re not all out to get FR and some of us do care to share what information we have, allbeit limited due to contractural obligations. Hopefully, we can start off on new footing?
Just to be clear for Callisto's benefit (Humblegunner knows this), I speak only for myself. I have no official or even unofficial role on Free Republic — in fact, although I've been reading for years, I haven't posted much until 2009 and rarely commented until the last couple of months.
My sole goal in commenting is to explain the law on the ownership of copyrighted “works done for hire” since not following that law could result in Free Republic getting sued. It probably wouldn't happen, but nobody could have expected the “out of the blue” Righthaven lawsuit, either, especially coming from a fairly conservative newspaper.
One of the biggest problems with the rise of the internet is that lots of people who never had a reason to know the details of copyright and libel law are now at risk of learning those details the hard way.
Well that explains why their operatives aren't spamming us any more.
No offense, but those mooks (the two or three operatives that posted here)
were the very worst sort of pimps. Post and run types with profiles
written in the third person, as if to imply elitism. Pimp trash really.
Toward the end, the desperation for hits became obvious.
Apparent every blogger they had was given a formula: Lists.
"The top ten reasons that _____________________________"
Each individual point was made on a separate page, resulting
in a ten fold increase in hits.. if readers could be enticed
to muddle through the whole mess. Obvious and desperate.
Those operatives did not wish to be a part of the Free Republic
community, nor to interact. They were here to peddle excerpted
writing for hits and for no other reason. I'm glad they are gone.
While I agree that I and others might have a bit of a hair trigger
on the issue and that I may at times be mistaken in my assignment of motivation,
those Horopimps were using Free Republic as a hit farm. No doubt.
You mean that everybody wasn’t enthralled and entranced by the attractively packaged, thoughtful, well-reasoned presentations on NewsReal!?!
I visited the site ~ONCE~. The flash, pop-ups and screen crawly things, combined with the sophomoric articles made me ashamed that these guys were on “our” side.
As a consequence, I gave their people crap whenever I could. Not ashamed to admit it. I thought of them as giving Pimps a bad name.
Callisto - You may very well be conducting yourself in an honorable fashion, but you also have to understand that the sensibilities here have been abused by the crassest of the crass.
One very well known blogger (Since thankfully Zotted) used to post his articles in full not only on his own blog, but on anywhere from four to six other, non-related blogs and sites, including Brietbart’s “Big” sites and then purposely excerpt here on FR just for hits. If you clicked on his site without wearing and electronic condom, your computer was sure to get a social-cyber-disease. The guy used to claim he made pennies a day off his site, but after having it analyzed by a friend of mine who is a website design pro, he estimated that it was actually worth $4 - 7 per hit, depending on length of stay and subsequent hits.
You may well be engaged in a labor of love and even if you’re not, I begrudge no one a profit from their work. Just remember that a most of the readers here on FR, like yourself, have paid in donations to keep this site free of ads and a safe environment in which to get (and comment on) the news and matters of interest.
(Like Third World Kickball, Psychic Octopuses and the size of the First Wookie’s butt.)
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.