Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Help Ann Coulter strike back: post YOUR "distorted" picture of the TIME magazine editors here
www.AnnCoulter.org ^ | April 18, 2005 | Ann Coulter (with help from Rockitz, RonDog, and the all Ann's FRiends here on FR)

Posted on 04/18/2005 3:14:45 PM PDT by RonDog

.

As FReeper Rockitz noted on a previous thread:
To: RaceBannon

Ann doesn't miss a beat.

She put this on her own site. It's a picture of Time's picture editor, Mary Anne Golon with some equally unflattering distortion.



307 posted on 04/18/2005 11:27:25 AM PDT by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
Certainly some creative FReepers could help Ann exact her revenge...
...by posting even MORE unflattering "distorted" images of the TIME magazine staff on this thread.


TOPICS: Political Humor/Cartoons; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; coulter; time; timemag
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 next last
To: Keith in Iowa
That pic demonstrates this guy has some sort of perverted fixation with the lower anatomy and a desire to capture it on film...and a self portrait with exaggerated features as this is just creepy...
Perhaps as Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

This "height fetish" seems to be Platon's standard operating procedure.

From the interview posted on www.mediabistro.com:

Some of your photographs seem more like iconic symbols of the subject than like portraits, particularly the ones of George H.W. Bush and Clinton.
It's very intimidating to be photographed, but if I kneel down and chat with you, so you're looking down at me, it makes you feel less threatened.

My father is an architect, so I often think like a designer or an architect. I remember when I was admiring buildings, I would look up at them and see this perspective and this awesome power of the monument in front of me.

I guess it's natural to see these icons in the same way, the architecture of people...

51 posted on 04/18/2005 4:39:07 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

Thank you Mr. Blackwell............what a treat to have a fashion expert like yourself saving us all from making a serious fashion faux pas!


52 posted on 04/18/2005 4:39:28 PM PDT by Doc Savage (...because they stand on a wall, and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Maryanne's face would wear
on me after a while.


53 posted on 04/18/2005 4:39:33 PM PDT by Petronski (John Paul the Great, pray for the Conclave. Holy Spirit, make Your will known.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

The picture makes her look tall and too skinny. In real life she's tall and too skinny.

What's the problem?

I personally dont like women that skinny. Other than that she looks fine.


54 posted on 04/18/2005 4:39:33 PM PDT by vezke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Image hosted by TinyPic.com

If only TIME could be honest.

55 posted on 04/18/2005 4:40:21 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican

LMAO! There is a Classic,How Dare You Not Ping me!


56 posted on 04/18/2005 4:41:08 PM PDT by cmsgop ( Don't Forget to check out Bea Arthur in the "Menopause Monologues"††coming on NBC this fall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Looks like he wears john madden's shoes


57 posted on 04/18/2005 4:42:12 PM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Hysterical!!


58 posted on 04/18/2005 4:44:20 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MaryFromMichigan

"Time magazine being unfair to a conservative?
Ann is too bright to be surprised at that."

You would think so. But even some conservative writers get off on being all "chummy-chum-chum" with the "insiders."

Laura Ingraham is one of the greatest radio commentators around IMHO, but she looooves to drop names...names like Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, etc. etc. and show how "connected" she is.

Hannity does this too.

While on one hand they like to say they are just one of us commoners, they like to point out that they are part of an inner circle that we don't belong to.

For Ann Coulter to act surprised when the rabid dog bites her hand, elicits little sympathy from me.


59 posted on 04/18/2005 4:46:55 PM PDT by SerpentDove (Let's not go casting asparagus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Some of your photographs seem more like iconic symbols of the subject than like portraits, particularly the ones of George H.W. Bush and Clinton.
Ann is apparently in rather good company, having her image distorted for the cover on a magazine. :o)
Here is ANOTHER example of Platon's "trademaked" distortions, from www.texasmonthly.com:
...Platon, who photographed the former president for the cover, discusses portraiture and creating the perfect image...

60 posted on 04/18/2005 4:54:45 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Image hosted by TinyPic.com
61 posted on 04/18/2005 4:54:55 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

Hey TIME, it's called http://www.bugmenot.com

That, or a friend, or the library, or a doctor's office. But, the newsstand or a subscription to you? HAH!! In your ear!


62 posted on 04/18/2005 5:08:21 PM PDT by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch. NOT to be schiavoed, greered, or felosed as a patient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Another Mary Ann Golon picture

63 posted on 04/18/2005 5:26:46 PM PDT by Col Freeper (Never argue with an idiot - - it's a useless activity and the leftist just enjoys it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
64 posted on 04/18/2005 5:31:16 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

Long long ago, in a galaxy far far away, I used to be a fashion model. I used it as a way to pay my tuition in an MD/PhD program I was enrolled in. So I learned these things the hard way.


65 posted on 04/18/2005 5:52:59 PM PDT by Capriole (I don't have any problems that couldn't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
66 posted on 04/18/2005 5:53:12 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; cmsgop; TLBSHOW

I didn't make it. In fact I am not sure who did. Might have been Todd, but I don't know what his PS skills are. But I bet he sweats when he sees it.


67 posted on 04/18/2005 5:53:52 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
The main thing I would disagree with in your long "analysis" is that in point # 1 I think Ann would have no problem whatsoever looking great and sexy since she knows she is anything but the dumb blond type. Besides that I don't know any conservative women that have a problem looking good or sexy. Many are just that.

We are not in disagreement. I'm just saying that most women who are not actresses would not really want to appear on the cover of Time magazine looking sexy. They'd want to look attractive but also intelligent, astute, or whatever. Sexy is for other situations. Ann doesn't really look sexual here but then would she really want to? Instead she looks pretty, youthful, and smart, which she is.

68 posted on 04/18/2005 5:56:43 PM PDT by Capriole (I don't have any problems that couldn't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

No distortion needed!


69 posted on 04/18/2005 5:58:11 PM PDT by pke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

The best! WTG


70 posted on 04/18/2005 6:02:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RonDog; ModernDayHeroes.com; Boston

.

Another American Woman with a Message:

Mrs. SUSAN RESCORLA honors her 911 lifesaving hero RICK RESCORLA in a stunning April 16, 2005 'Social Weapons/Modern Day Heroes' Radio Interview Show Archived on:

http://www.SocialWeapons.com

She has a real message for the nation straight from her late husband RICK RESCORLA before our next terrorist attack on American Soil.

http://www.RickRescorla.com

.


71 posted on 04/18/2005 6:04:42 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican

LOLOL


72 posted on 04/18/2005 6:06:23 PM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible

I wish I knew who did that image. I'd buy em a coffee!


73 posted on 04/18/2005 6:07:50 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

Oh great, Tinypic chooses TONIGHT ot go offline. Wonderful.


74 posted on 04/18/2005 6:16:39 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

Boy, Doc. You're tough. Not all men share the same tastes. \

I may not be 300 pounds, but I'm not Ann Coulter, either!


75 posted on 04/18/2005 6:25:02 PM PDT by bannie (The government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

I can't stand Ann Coulter. If she wants to be a media whore with a goofy fish-eye picture, that's up to her. She's all about the publicity.


76 posted on 04/18/2005 6:28:59 PM PDT by annyokie (Laissez les bons temps rouler !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
I see it. Time mag cover.

here's one


77 posted on 04/18/2005 6:33:07 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Do-it-yourself image distorter!


78 posted on 04/18/2005 6:34:10 PM PDT by Nick Danger (You can stick a fork in the Mullahs... they're done)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
The obvious reply is:

"If they will obviously distort a photo on their cover on behalf of their agenda, why do they bother to deny distorting their articles week after week for the same reason?"
79 posted on 04/18/2005 6:38:12 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Someone out there in cyberspace may have the TIME picture of Dubya ... where the two tips of the "M" protrude over the top of his head. Come'on FReepers TIME magazine will never do a cover that might remotely flatter a conservative ... get real!!!
80 posted on 04/18/2005 6:39:12 PM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

81 posted on 04/18/2005 6:44:57 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

What a nasty post. When I was her age I was thin and skinny too - under a 100 pounds. You're the JERK with this post.


82 posted on 04/18/2005 6:47:05 PM PDT by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: annyokie

Ann before she discovered bulimia and botox.

83 posted on 04/18/2005 6:53:16 PM PDT by annyokie (Laissez les bons temps rouler !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
Someone out there in cyberspace may have the TIME picture of Dubya ... where the two tips of the "M" protrude over the top of his head.

84 posted on 04/18/2005 7:03:58 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

mark for tomorrow........


85 posted on 04/18/2005 7:05:18 PM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
See also, this thread about a PREVIOUS Time magazine cover of President Bush:
Love Him, Hate Him President (Check out the cover of TIME)
TIME ^ | 11/23/03 | JOHN F. DICKERSON AND KAREN TUMULTY
Posted on 11/23/2003 7:11:53 AM PST by Brian Mosely

There is an axiom in American politics that says whenever a sitting President is running for a second term, the election is more a referendum on him than a judgment on his opponent. President George W. Bush has taken this truism to a new level. With just under a year to go before Nov. 2, 2004, Americans are already finding ways to show how passionately they feel about their President...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

86 posted on 04/18/2005 7:07:12 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
See also:
Is Bush the Devil? (Slick Time Photo Layout)
  Posted by Rokurota
On News/Activism 05/20/2004 11:32:44 PM PDT · 30 replies · 32+ views

 

Check out Bush On Cover of Time
  Posted by bellevuesbest
On News/Activism 05/20/2004 5:21:49 PM PDT · 96 replies · 166+ views


Time Magazine | 5-24-04 | Time Magazine

87 posted on 04/18/2005 7:08:22 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.

Dear Readers,

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.

This is what happened.

In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

No response.

Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.

By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.

What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?

Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.

Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.

For example:

* Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.

* She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.

* And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.

Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.

We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.

— Jonah Goldberg


88 posted on 04/18/2005 7:15:23 PM PDT by annyokie (Laissez les bons temps rouler !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Perfect.


89 posted on 04/18/2005 7:16:48 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.

— Jonah Goldberg

I wonder if Mr. Goldberg wishes he had a spine these days

90 posted on 04/18/2005 7:20:14 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

As per what?


91 posted on 04/18/2005 7:22:10 PM PDT by annyokie (Laissez les bons temps rouler !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
And for Ann's rebuttal to those "girlie men" at NR, see her interview with Katie Couric:
Katie Couric: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should -- when it came to fighting terrorism, we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?

Ann Coulter: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now, and, in fact, this -- the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations, which is a small word, picking out the word of parents.

It makes a big difference. And these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference. To try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as Nazis, slave owners, (unintelligible), homophobic, how about dealing with our ideas? I mean I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy --

Katie Couric: Well, obviously --

Ann Coulter: -- is precisely what liberals do all the time.

Katie Couric: But obviously the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant?

Ann Coulter: That also isn't quite true. I mean I write a syndicated column, I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, and they dropped the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including --

Katie Couric: Why don't you explain what you meant, then.

Ann Coulter
: -- that they're my competitors.

Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy.

As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels.

I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity...

92 posted on 04/18/2005 7:38:11 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

No response.

Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.[/quote

So the question is: Did Ann learn this tactic from one of her Close Personal Friends, or vice versa?


93 posted on 04/18/2005 7:44:58 PM PDT by annyokie (Laissez les bons temps rouler !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
I wonder if TIME had an agenda:

Image hosted by TinyPic.com

94 posted on 04/18/2005 7:45:40 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
kelly02

Hello, Mr. Kelly!
95 posted on 04/18/2005 7:46:46 PM PDT by Ghengis (Alexander was a wuss!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican

LOL, in his dreams and her nightmares.


96 posted on 04/18/2005 7:46:48 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
...her interview with Katie Couric...
You can still view part of that classic the "Coulter/Couric catfight" HERE:
Katie Couric & Ann Coulter
Katie Couric/Ann Coulter
Wednesday, June 26, 2002

97 posted on 04/18/2005 7:50:04 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

ping


98 posted on 04/18/2005 7:51:53 PM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< Impeach Judge Greer http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

99 posted on 04/18/2005 7:55:32 PM PDT by petercooper (Put Mark Levin on the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

100 posted on 04/18/2005 7:57:36 PM PDT by reagan_fanatic (It takes all kinds of critters...to make Farmer Vincents fritters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson