Posted on 11/30/2007 12:17:46 PM PST by Blue Turtle
The average American has one Representative and two Senators. Flush with cash from foreign entities these advocacy groups like CAIR have 435 representatives and 100 senators.
We all look forward to Dr. Savage's victory! and an end to the outrage that's gone on way too long.
So, crushing CAIR's and other radical Islam groups' second-front assault against America is priority one for all of us; and the victory may send a message for a another type of "war."
Maybe those Indian-American and Mexican-American advocacy groups lobbying our Congress can be questioned. Who do they really represent. To wit, how does demanding more off-shoring and more H1Bs help Americans of Indian descent find work? How does erasing the Mexican border help Americans of Mexican descent have a decent, cost-of-living-matching income?
Got popcorn?
This should be interesting!
I saw her tonight, SB - she rocked!!!!
My husband was telling me about this earlier tonight. I hope this goes somewhere. Way to go Savage!
Yes, Michael must win this one, for all of us.
Why would Rush comment? Would you expect McDonald's to spent a lot of time discussing a threatened boycott of Wendy's?
And that was unusual because ... ?
Free Republic is a site that uses excerpts from copyrighted material and raises money via fundraising drives - do we really want copyright holders to have a legal precedent which gives them the right to go after groups which use fair use material for fundraising purposes?
I first listened to the Doctor back in '96 when I was down in the Bay Area doing some bizzness... My thoughts at the time was that here was a Talk Radio Personality that shared my passion and views, and would surely be 86'd off the air in short order!!!
Glad to see he has prospered and is now in the top ten! May his lawsuit slap the beejesus out of CAIR!
They are!! That's the bast part- CAIR getting whacked by a bunch of Jewish lawyers- man you gotta love it. GO MIKE GO!!
I don’t think it’s the same thing. Our excerpts and articles have links to the source material- That’s above the line between articles and user posts. Material in user posts are distanced from FR by disclaimer.
These CAIR clowns took bits of recorded material out of context and made a fund raising commercial out of it.
You know, I figured fair use would be a viable defense...
If savage can get to trial though, he might still be able to force the naming of the financial backers.
Savage could lose the suit, which wouldn’t bother me at all for the reasons you specify, but still achieve the stated goal of exposing who is really behind CAIR.
That is all I care about.
They didn’t merely use excerpts for fundraising either. They used them to induce advertisers to quit their sponsorships. That is tantamount to lying, to damage Savage’s livlihood. That has nothing to do with news, or fair use, or discussing news, does it? There has to be damages there. I’m not an expert on fair use, but what Cair did with respect to the pressure on Savage advertisers (not the fundraising) doesn’t seem remotely close to the purpose or activities of FR. Of course, that also isn’t the premise of the lawsuit, so Savage might have to go back a second time with a different suit, if there is anything to what I’ve speculated. The copyright thing does seem spotty. I just want CAIR exposed for what it is.
Same reason he commented about Bob Grant? (And Imus too, I think.)
ML/NJ
I like how these foreign born Muzzies are suing everyone. They just got off the banana boat 5-10 years ago and they are suing Americans who go back 100 years and more
Muzzies are so Allah intoxicated they have no sense of proportion. Here's hoping Savage & lawyer do so much discovery on CAIR it leaves them stunned, so stunned they never sue again
I'm no expert, but from a legal perspective I'm not sure it matters. After all books and newspaper reviews and the like don't actually have any links to source material at all other than citation. Whether or not the material excerpted is an accurate rendition of the views of an author isn't the subject of copyright vs. fair use - it's the extent of how much the copyrighted material is copied and for what purpose.
There are some strong free speech issues in terms of determining whether or not such out-of-context excerpts can be legally challenged. It's not as if in the political fundraising game that most fundraisers present the fair-and-balanced approach to their opponents positions.
Given the somewhat capricious nature of fair use doctrine however Savage might have a something of a case, but it's not a really strong one.
I have to object to the misuse of the legal system here. Its purpose is to settle actual disputes under law not to embarrass political enemies. Again would we like it if FR was subject to endless frivolous suits just to find out who the "real" backers of the site are?
The "slippery slope" argument that you keep advancing is a logical fallacy.
CAIR misuses the legal system on a regular basis. What goes around comes around. In this case, CAIR's objectives are too sinister to not use the legal, political and social systems, as well as the media, in any way possible, to expose them for what they are. That is how things get done in the real world. Your comments sound like the same people who lose wars because they insist on fighting them in a politically correct fashion.
Oh, and CAIR is not just a “political enemy.” They are enemies of life, liberty and the pursuite of happiness. That calls for extraordinary measures.
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.