In the case he focuses on in his post, free speech isn't an issue, isn't even mentioned:
Note: The subsequent posts to outside links that were posted, after the original Silverman editorial, do deal with mostly trademark issues. However, these laws can be used as weapons to discourage free speech. We're looking at individual trees, and we're not seeing a forest. Separate trees include the mention of the the Goldman Sachs trademark in the domain name. Obviously, Goldman Sachs would like as few people as possible to see any potentially disparaging web sites as possible. Therefore, these types of lawsuits are often about "appeasing the company" and avoiding substantial legal fees.
As for Google ranking. Google uses proprietary ranking systems. Therefore, if I look for Columbia Journalism, maybe I'll get Columbia University School of Journalism, but if Google chooses, I might get Columbia Broadcasting System --CBS -- journalism. Google decides decides if I get the CBS "60 Minutes" as a top ranked result, or not. So, I'm not sure the "unfair competition" issues are as clear-cut as some would hope when it comes to search terms.
Therefore, I wish to re-focus this on the main editorial -- the forest -- that started this whole topic. The other links simply deal with the tools -- the saws -- lawyers use to saw away at that forest. However, free speech remains the underlying issue, since the goal, in part, is often to limit the number of people who will find and read potentially disparaging remarks.
So, to refocus, here's where free speech is mentioned. Silverman writes: "The blogger is either too scared to continue under the legal threats or he is simply without the resource to fight back. The website is modified to appease the company or it is taken down altogether. "
Anyman, it's the modern-day equivalent to censorship and to book burning. Since Silverman's site is for lawyers, you're expected to connect the dots, yourself.
Back to your statement, you are the one insinuating "free speech" into the context of the blog post. This is disingenuous a best, completely dishonest at worst.
Silverman goes on to say: "More often than not, an individual blogger will balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble with a corporation the size of Goldman Sachs. Why assume the risk, the blogger may ask, when I can simply take the content offline?"
Silverman is talking about taking the content "offline." Get it, Anyman? When you take content "offline" it's the modern day equivalent of book-burning, because nobody sees that content or those books any more. That's the point of many trademark lawsuits.
I took the sound position that the blog in question was not written for, nor was it presented as an argument involving the Constitutional question of free speech. The blog in question here was written to deal with trademark infringement.
Are ideas about free speech and censorship not included, too? Motivation and goals have to be an issue, too.
It is also dishonest, as some here have done, to couch Morgan as the "victor" in this case. The dismissal was predicated on his agreeing to the prominent posting of a disclaimer of any connection to Goldman Sachs.
If the site is still up, then it is still up. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
You have attempted to hide behind the cloak of "press" - which is a stretch at best.
Yes, but television evangelists use the same Constitution, freedom of religion, to promote their bizarre agendas, which are really a stretch at times, i.e, "Jesus is going to call me home if you don't send me the money." Or, "Haiti suffered an earthquake because they all made a pact with the devil." Or, "If a gay man looks at me the wrong way I'm going to kill him."
Remember those memorable remarks, Anyman? See any stretches there?
RJP is attempting, through this blog post, to now position the two of you as bloggers - which is inaccurate and dishonest.
There is no Federal Bureau of Blogging -- the infamous FBB. The FBB police are not coming for these two "dishonest" people to drag them away in chains.
No one seeks to remove your free speech rights - go ahead voice your concern . . . however, the law, American society, and common sense say that when you step over the line from legitimate concern to libel and slander you are going to have to pay a consequence.
And that consequence would be what?
I understand that you have a problem with suffering the consequences of your words and actions, but that's life in this country and you're going to have to live with it or leave.
Consequences, and being forced to leave, too. You wish.
I understand that you and RJP will ride this paycheck pony until it collapses (and it will) but you ultimately do a disservice to the Word of God and secondly the Constitution of this country by doing so. This was never about free speech or any other aspect of the First Amendment, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself of that lie.
When it comes to the collapsing pony take another look. All television has gone digital. That means that for every PBS station, there are now four digital PBS stations squeezed into the same spectrum where there used to be just one analog station.. There are now entire PBS channels that have nothing but lifestyle programming: gardening, cooking, landscaping, home improvement, local politics, geology, geography, astronomy, you name it.
Generally speaking, any business cannot run a hole-in-the-wall operation and still have money left over to defend themselves in court year after year after year. There's less money left over to go into capital improvements and inventory, etc. A business can easily become under-capitalized with too much money going to high-paid lawyers.
No, it might not be the Joy and Pickle pony that will collapse for lack of oats. Surely, you suspect that, by now.
Author
Topic: What they are saying (Read 33940 times)
