childoftheking,
You are right about bringing up bias. Anyman has to be extremely biased to deny that "Defending Blogger Rights" is about free speech. Bloggers by definition produce "speech."
Thank you for substantiating my point. You're not, nor have you ever been, a blogger.
Irrelevant one way or the other to the point I made. But the author of the article apparently felt we were bloggers, or he wouldn't have used us as an example of bloggers being picked on by corporate bullies.
The semantics here are not subtle, they are obvious. The point of the post is far removed from the reality of your situation. Again, try to focus, the blogger's "speech" was <never> at issue in the case focused on. Thus the falsehood of the statement you make on your web site.
How do you know free speech was never an issue? Have you read the answer to the complaint?
But whether or not the lawyers involved have raised the issue, the author of the article believes free speech is at issue:
"... uses his website as a sounding board ...."
"Media attorney Marc Randazza sums up the absurdity of the Goldman Sachs claims here ...."
Sounding boards and media attorneys are all about free speech, not copyright or trademark law. The corporate bullies simply are using copyright and trademark law to try to circumvent the protections of the First Amendment, since commercial speech can be restricted to a point.
"Why assume the risk, the blogger may ask, when I can simply take the content offline? Though such thinking is understandable given the lopsided display of power, such surrender is only empowering the beast."
Empowering the beast to do what? Knock over your trash cans at night or eat all your dog food? Not at all. Infringe on your American free speech rights? Certainly. That's the clear message of the article.