Just a suggestion.
Jim should make it easier for freepers to see a complete list of no, no media, (without having to search for it), for posters rather than freepers wasting time discovering after cutting and pasting and finding that posts are not allowed from a particular media. It’s good that FR catches the majority of the no no posts, but many times freepers post no no media info. in replies to other freepers and it is not caught.
But this paper wasn’t on the ‘no-no’ list. I guess it’s post first, sue later.
This is one area of law where you might think conservatives and liberals both agree. It's surprising that the Supreme Court hasn't found the right case to set some specific guidelines with respect to what qualifies as "fair use". YouTube just won against Viacom with very similar circumstances at play in this case, and you might think that would be helpful here.
I'm not a 1A attorney and I'm not very familiar with the complexities of the relevant statutes and case law, but I'm not quite sure why Digital Millennium Copyright Act, doesn't insulate FreeRepublic and other similar sites from just these kinds of claims.
In any event, I think it deeply cuts against the 1st Amendment when business who exist ONLY because of the 1st Amendment use copyright laws to stifle (presumably) criticism of either themselves, or the people they cover.
Just block ALL content from that website, surely there is a way.
Can FR put “forbidden blockers” much like most of our employers do?