Category Archives: free speech

"Damn Teenagers Don’t Want to Follow the Script!"

June 26, 2007 – 8:37 am

Stevens’ dissent in Morse v. Frederick:

A significant fact barely mentioned by the Court sheds a revelatory light on the motives of both the students and the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS). On January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay gave those Alaska residents a rare chance to appear on national television. As Joseph Frederick repeatedly explained, he did not address the curious message—“BONG HiTS 4 JESUS”— to his fellow students. He just wanted to get the camera crews’ attention. Moreover, concern about a nationwide evaluation of the conduct of the JDHS student body would have justified the principal’s decision to remove an attention-grabbing 14-foot banner, even if it had merely proclaimed “Glaciers Melt!”

Scholars urge Bush to ban use of torture:

WASHINGTON — President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to “violations of the human rights” of terror suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush had not expected the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who handed it to him.

“The president enjoyed a visit with the students, accepted the letter and upon reading it let the student know that the United States does not torture and that we value human rights,” deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

The students had been invited to the East Room to hear the president speak about his effort to win congressional reauthorization of his education law known as No Child Left Behind.

By Matthew Frederick | Also posted in torture | Comments Off

Fair Use Explained (and Tested)

May 22, 2007 – 10:50 am


This op-ed piece in the NYT touched-off a nice internets discussion here and here among other places. (Welcome, Eschaton & Matthew Yglesias readers!)

Stanford Law’s Center for Internet & Society has recently produced an entertaining explanation of copyright and fair use worth watching. The video uses Disney clips to explain the law, making the explanation itself an example of fair use. In its own way, the video tests the fair use doctrine, though, as we earlier surmised, Stanford Law likely has the resources and acumen to defend itself from spurious legal action brought by Walt Disney Corp.

Copyright law niceties aside, what corporations like Walt Disney have actually achieved in the courtroom pale in comparison to the impact such legal actions have had on our cultural discourse at large. Much like the anecdotes of exorbiant personal injury jury awards, the anecdotal stories of elementary schools and small-time artists slapped with injuctions not to use Disney (and other corporate-”owned”) properties have distorted the layperson’s understanding of the actual law and its actual processes. Even many rightful fair-users probably assume that they are “pirating” copyrighted works when, in fact, their use of material falls well within the bounds of fair use.

For a more trippy take on copyright and fair use, check out Negativland’s Gimme the Mermaid, which features angry answering machine messages from somebody’s IP counsel.

By Matthew Frederick | Also posted in fair use | Comments Off
InspectorWordpress has prevented 27 attacks.