Skip to comments.CAIR Savages the First Amendment
Posted on 12/10/2007 12:46:05 PM PST by MrCFdovnh
And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. Qur'an: Sura 2:191
Together, the 1st and 2nd Amendments make up the last line of defense between the American people and tyranny, whether it be the tyranny of foreign invaders, international and homegrown terrorists, or our own federal government. By calling for irrevocable freedom of expression in the very 1st amendment, The Founders obviously made clear that they held the free exchange of information in highest esteem.
Americans recognize there are many forms of expression such as MoveOn.org hit pieces in the New York Times, KKK rallies, gay pride parades, and myriad other ways to exercise free speech that we may not necessarily agree with, but we take the good with the bad and tolerate even the outlandish, as long as nobody slanders, advocates violence or gets hurt.
Without unhindered freedom of expression, there can be no criticism.
(Excerpt) Read more at warofwits.org ...
CAIR is certainly a terrorist organization, which does not deserve tax free status. But all they are doing in this case is promoting a boycott. They have invoked the PC rules in other cases to try to shut down free speech by law, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
I think the proper response in this case is to learn what companies have pulled their advertising in response to CAIR’s boycott, and boycott them in return for aiding and abetting the Muslim jihad.
an action alert urging their followers to pressure advertisers to drop their sponsorship of the showThe way to fight this is to provide counter-pressure to advertisers. It's not really a 1st amendment issue. Can't you imagine organizing a boycott of advertisers of a TV "documentary" that "proved" that 9/11 was secretly ordered by Bush? Or one that "proved" that gun ownership caused high crime rates?
Boycotts do work both ways, you know.
As far as the 1st amendment goes, that applies to government suppression of free speech, not civilian-led boycotts aimed at reducing commercial sponsorship for a given TV or radio broadcast.
Now, if US govt employees are aiding and abetting CAIR, then that's a horse of a different color.
I don’t trust anything islamic especially CAIR.
You know that name “CAIR” sounds like “CARE”. It’s way to positive. Savage needs to start using a more Arabic pronounciation like “CAH’-EER”. I bet it would drive them up the wall.
thx for the ping! I really hope he wins this. I doubt it will go to court though.
Bingo, samtheman. It is impossible for CAIR to violate the 1st Amendment rights of someone. As for Savage’s lawsuit, the 1st Amendment will actually work against him in his claims against CAIR for copyright infringement.
Anything new on the lawsuit?
Just like the clintons do when they get bad press...
The only thing worse than an Islamic-sponsored boycott is a lawsuit trying to shut down their freedom of speech. Their use of a radio clip clearly falls under ‘fair use’ guidelines.
Savage could have done something more useful, like call for a counter-boycott, or donate part of advertising fees to some anti-Islamic cause. But I can’t support the tactic he chose because it assaults everybody’s freedom.
It sounds that way to me. His case sounds weak. Though it does depend on how much of the show they used, of course.
“As for Savages lawsuit, the 1st Amendment will actually work against him in his claims against CAIR for copyright infringement.”
How so? They used excerpts from his show without his permission.
Also, the author has a weird reading of the 1st Amendment. CAIR does a private boycott, which the 1st Amendment says nothing about, whereas Savage is now trying to use the government to shut their boycott’s fair use of the media clip, which is quite relevant. There’s a big difference.
Boycotts are very American, starting with the Boston Tea Party. The government should not be providing relief to Savage because CAIR says nasty things about him.
I’d be happy to help Savage counter this, but not by this “SLAPP” tactic.
Sam, it could be an interesting case. You are correct in that the ultimate question of “fair use” will often hinge on the amount of material actually “copied.” But, Savage’s case does raise some interesting issues with respect to the “purpose and character of use” and, to a lesser extent, the “effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” (Those are 2 of the 4 factors used in a “fair use” analysis under copyright law.) I still think he will lose, but it could get interesting (at least to an IP attorney). I do hope that his attorney (David Horowitz) has already sought the assistance of attorneys experienced in copyright matters. It’s a highly complex area of the law and he will definitely need some help (and I don’t mean that as an unfavorable comment on Horowitz’s own abilities).
driftdriver, there is such a thing as “fair use” under copyright law. Basically, portions of a copyrighted work can be reproduced for things such as criticism, comment, news reporting, etc. The four factors which must be considered are:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Fair use really goes hand in hand with the First Amendment. In fact, the fair use doctrine was originally a judicial creation, rooted largely in the 1st Amendment. It later was codified at 17 USC section 107. Its application is very fact dependent. However, in the context of political speech, it gives one the ability to, for example, quote portions of a copyrighted work in order to comment on it. Without fair use, for example, a politician could write a speech, give that speech at a public gathering, and then use the copyright laws in order to prevent anyone from reproducing portions of that speech for purpose of commentary, news reporting, etc.
Savage’s lawsuit is a bit strange...er, unique, in that it seems to be challenging CAIR’s reliance on the fair use doctrine because of how CAIR is using the excerpts (to raise money), the nature of CAIR itself, and the negative impact of CAIR’s use of the excerpts on Savage’s ability to make money.
It would take way too long for me to expound further on this right now, and I would probably mess something up or omit something important. But, courts tend to side with the accused infringer in these situations provided that there is at least an appearance that the materials is being used for commentary and that the amount of material reproduced is not too great.
One other thing that others have alluded to....reverse some of the facts in this case...imagine there is a left-wing radio program (there are still a few of those left, aren’t there?) in which the host routinely rants about American soldiers in Iraq being involved in rape, the killing of innocent children, torture of prisoners, etc. - the worst possible vile you can imagine.
Now, let’s also imagine that there are numerous well-known companies that run advertising during the radio show. One can only imagine that there would be several groups and organizations very upset and wanting to put a stop to it. Most people, including myself, would feel that one approach would be to try and convince advertisers to drop the show immediately, else face a call for a nationwide boycott. Of course in order to be effective, those efforts would likely necessitate the reproduction, either audio recordings and/or transcriptions of portions of the show. If the protesters have enough money, they might even pay for some radio and TV advertisements calling for boycotts, and those ads would really need to use some excerpted material. Paraphrasing is not very effective most of the time. BUT, without the fair use doctrine, the use of those excerpts without permission would be considered copyright infringement.
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.