Skip to comments.It's Official: LAT/WP vs Free Republic Settles
Posted on 06/19/2002 1:54:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
As a First Amendment lawyer, I felt strongly that FreeRepublic should have won its case, on several strong grounds that go to the heart of the meaning of the First Amendment. However, it takes deep pockets to be ready to go all the way to the Supreme Court. And given some recent rulings by that Court including two really bad ones yesterday, there is no guarantee of good results if you went that far.
Bottom line: the settlement you outlined is well tolerable to FreeRepublic, so I fully support your decision to go that route.
I do have a suggestion, however, that you may find interesting. I understand that the Washington Post and the L.A. Times are both hypocritical (no surprise there) in that they attacked FreeRepublic for "full-article" posts, but took no action concerning such posts on other websites that agree with the leftist bias of those two newspapers. My suggestion is based on that understanding.
When an article appears in either of those newspapers which FReepers feel should be intellectually tarred and feathered, a Google search should turn up whether the entire article has been posted on SOME OTHER WEBSITE. If so, the entire article should be posted and referenced to the OTHER website. Let the Post and the Times sue the other websites, ad infinatum.
As I understand it, the Consent Decree does not have any effect on the relationships between FreeRepublic and any other websites in the world, except for the two that are operated by those newspapers.
Do you like that suggestion?
So if individual freepers are screened out, what if you WANT to know what it was from John Q. Obnoxious that provoked Jane Z. Friend's comment? You have to cumbersomely reset your filter to see?
Close enough for government work. :-)
This is great news.
Few sites would probably object, but the L.A. Times and Washington Post also want to keep the ability to dump into the memory home any stories they've posted that turn out to be unflattering (i.e. are too quickly exposed as major lies or goofs).
BTW, one reason Jewish World Review's requests for link/excerpt-only posting have generally been respected is that their links generally (if not always) stay valid and the linked stories do not change. By contrast, some other "news" sources routinely try to cover their tracks when they get caught lying.
I would think the answer to this is to keep a "personal" copy. Then when they get caught in a goof, post the goof with explicit commentary as to what the goof was. This would be unequivocal fair use.
*** Free Republic agrees to remove all full text copies of any LAT/WP and related publications copyrighted articles from its archives and servers and to destroy all copies of same***
As I said from the beginning - They want our archives!
As mentioned earlier... Thanks for the other 'flags'... I'm away behind on FR... Thanks for the dinner - tomorrow is my birthday [29th]
While numerous positives can be pointed out in this agreement, one comes to mind, the real truth can still be heard contrary to how some MSM likes to portray their "truth". It is a good day.