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
But heh, I'm not the one who used the word, "cranky..."
As long as you don't make a profit on it and give credit to 'TigersEye'. /sarcasm (HTML tag included for the benefit of the humor challenged.)
I would think that reprinting of articles on any website would be good publicity for ANY publication as long as the source was included. And of course virtually every article on FR is sourced as well as hyperlinked. The editors at the LAT'S and the WP must be morons. If people see one or more articles that they like from a particular publication it stands to reason that they might be moved to go directly TO that publication to see what else they have. Then again, if you're selling incompetence or propaganda you might be more concerned about controlling its availability so as not to spoil things with your intended audience. FR was bringing flashlights into their mushroom farm and some of their crop might have began to notice that their feet were mired in Barbara Streisand.
The beautiful thing is their papers and articles WILL be referred to repeatedly and in the most unflattering ways. And without violating the terms of the agreement. And due to the history this mess has generated there will likely be greater interest in seeing just what nonsense they are currently publishing. When things referred to are proceeded with "BANNED MATERIAL" or "THIS CAN'T BE LEGALLY VIEWED HERE" it's just human nature that an irresistable itch to go find it develops.
WONDERFUL....great news on this first day of Summer!! Thanks for "slogging" it out on behalf of all of us.
I've been through this, myself, and it's a fine day when the lawyers pack their briefcases and go home...........
Some stuff is just worth fighting for!!!!
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.