[an amused spectator]

Concerning the WashPost/LATimes thing, I never could understand that. I compared what FreeRepublic was doing to if I bought the paper, and then showed an article I liked to 25 people who did not buy the paper. Isn't that the same thing?

It was a SLAPP suit (probably ordered by the Clinton White House), designed to cost FR time and money. It was brought before a Clinton judge who secured her position on the federal bench in part through advertisements in the LA Times (which were disguised as "news columns", written by a LAT "journalist" who was actually part of the suit).

Surprisingly (</sarcasm>), the "judge" came up with a four-point test that found that FR was "infringing".

Curiously, with this ruling firmly in hand, LAT/WP allow liberal websites to post full-length articles from their papers. Imagine that!

This very article by Ronald Brownstein is posted in full on the Smirking Chimp (a smaller liberal website, a little larger than FR was at the time of the lawsuit). The Smirking Chimp actually posted the FR judgement article way back when, so the operator can't claim ignorance - and he posts the majority of the articles:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=12123&mode=nested&order=0

It operates pretty much the way FR does, fundraisers, etc.

[Geritol]

If Smirking Chimp posts full LA Times articles, can we post the article from there, avoiding the court order, and possibly encouraging them to apply the same 4 point test to them? Or would that border on contempt and violation of a court order, which we want to avoid?