REC
Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
A note on Barry and free speech on the 4th:
Apparently Nick using his voice to criticize a private publisher, who then made a decision Barry disagrees with, is tantamount to Nazi book burning and concentration camps.
On the other hand (according to Barry's court filing), stealing a gay couple's copyrighted wedding photo and using it in an anti-gay political campaign, well, that's American. Privacy? meh. Copyright? meh. Their emotional distress? nah.
Because:
1)If you are a symbol of something someone detests you can forget about privacy, copyright, etc ... "It is also not about Plaintiffs' privacy interest in the photograph, because they had no such interest. No, this case has nothing to do with the claims that Plaintiffs assert. This case is about one and only one thing: the politics of same-sex unions. Public Advocate used the photograph as a symbol for same-sex unions."
2) The Supreme Court ruled Westboro Baptist can be hateful on matters of public concern, so if Barry makes your wedding a public symbol, despite the emotional distress it may cause you, it is covered: "The court held that the Westboro Baptist Church members' speech was in fact on matters if public concern and therefore completely protected by the First Amendment."
I tend towards very open speech--but turning someone's private wedding photo into something hateful because they can be made into a symbol of something you detest seems excessive.
Court filings, including pictures:
http://images.coloradoindependent.com/arringt....ton.pdf
http://www.fkks.com/blog....int.pdf
|
