Sorry. I linked to it from www.drudgereport.com and it worked ok. Try to go there and link.
Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions www.endoradigital.com 630/942-5211 x-134 ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Community Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:37 AM Subject: Bush Wins! This ought to open a very big can of worms: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions www.endoradigital.com 630/942-5211 x-134 ----- Original Message ----- From: C. Hatton Humphrey To: CF-Community Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: Lucasfilm shuts down fanfic site > > > Of course, one could make the point that the Constitution > > does _not_ say > > > your right to not be pissed is protected. Although many people would > > > disagree, see various "hate speech" type laws around the country. > > > Personally, I think the more an idiot is allowed to spew > > hate speech, > > > the more people will realize... well, that they are an idiot. ;) > > > > Agreed, but you miss my point. My example was more along the > > lines of a > > slander or libel, not hate speech or anything along those > > lines. You can be > > pissed all you want about an idiot spewing, but when someone > > takes your name > > and uses it in a slanderous way, then the law can be involved. > > > > Personally, I think libel/slander should be legal as well.... in theory. > I should be able to say that you have three arms, even if that is a > complete lie. I'm kind of an absolutist when it comes to free speech. > (Of course, nothing works in absolutes, and it would be different if > Newsweek said you had 3 arms.) I would hope that any competent person would see a difference between the absurd (your 3 arms suggestion) and the graphic (such as the stories that were pulled.) The first difference is that while you can draw me with 3 arms 4 legs and a pair of horns, these stories took a step down the Dark Side (sorry, couldn't resist). My example of slander or libel would make the implication that people were involved in rather interesting sexual escapades. That is what this "slash fiction" does. Some may not find lies to that scale disturbing, others would be threatening lawsuits if they found their name and likeness put into such a situation. My personal opinion in the matter is that once your freedoms begin restricting mine or attacking my personal beliefs directly with attacks aimed at me personally, we have problems. We're also going a little off the topic by using that example. I think a better case might be made if your company (blah.com just to throw an example out) had a group of characters that were used in commercials. What would the reaction be if someone took those characters and then created an explicit (and to some minds immoral or unethical) carnal story line that bordered on the bizarre. If this was done without permission (since the characters are copyright) then using the character's name and possibly image in the story would be considered copyright infringement. Had the names been altered, the setting changed from what the characters are normally found in... then that might be enough of a change to be considered artistic license. No changes are made though. Hatton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
