Here are Mr. Pride's words:
Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday.
This is a clear accusation that his detractors had violated the copyright laws in republishing the cartoon for public debate. There is no reason to mention this unless Mr. Pride feels that his or Mr. Marland's copyright was violated. Accusation of copyright infringement is a serious charge for writers. The US Court System deals with copyright infringement on a daily basis -- it is not something to take lightly. Jim Robinson, owner of the Free Republic, is currently dealing with this accusation in the courts right now with the LA Times and the Washington Post.
For someone who had an opinion that mattered I would call them a totalitarian fool if they seriously advocated a prior restraint on all of Marland's future cartoons. Talk about being an ignorant, uninformed, head in the sand chicken little.
No one is advocating prior restraint on Mike Marland's cartoons as that would involve the US Government. Denying him access to the pages of the Concord Monitor is not censorship but a pure business decision. Mr. Marland will still be able to shop his work to other publications or even establish a web site of his own to publish and sell his art. Newspaper publishing is not only a literary activity but a financial one. The publisher has far more responsibilities than catering to its writers. They must meet the business needs of the publication which involves investors and advertisers. Publishing a newspaper that negatively effects those two groups is a sure fire way to terminate its publication.
I'm sorry that you can do nothing more that throw insults in matter. I can understand you having a different opinion in this matter but it has been completely lost in your nasty, hate filled comments. Step back and look at what you are writing and how that reflects back on you and your opinion. I am sure that the blind members of the Free Republic would take umbrage to your invalidation of their opinions because of their physical condition.
This is a clear accusation that his detractors had violated the copyright laws in republishing the cartoon for public debate. There is no reason to mention this unless Mr. Pride feels that his or Mr. Marland's copyright was violated. Accusation of copyright infringement is a serious charge for writers. The US Court System deals with copyright infringement on a daily basis -- it is not something to take lightly. Jim Robinson, owner of the Free Republic, is currently dealing with this accusation in the courts right now with the LA Times and the Washington Post.
What the heck does this have to do with the fact that you're upset over the cartoon? Is there ANYTHING in his sentence that is inaccurate? Is there anything in that sentence that accuses ANYONE of breaking the law? You're clearly over reacting to the point where you're really rather dishonest, in my opinion.
No, I think they might be upset with me for comparing them to you.