tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2649222754472902123..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: A small victory for freedom of speechRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31967861609321201412008-06-07T01:33:00.000+10:002008-06-07T01:33:00.000+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tony Comstockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06376376894244593929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54530546992864308972008-06-05T17:46:00.000+10:002008-06-05T17:46:00.000+10:00In cases involving free speech (including things l...In cases involving free speech (including things like fair use), there's no requirement that you couldn't have made your point in any other way. (I'm a bit surprised to keep coming up against this misconception, but a lot of people do seem to have it so it's worth identifying.)<BR/><BR/>Think about it. Think of books, political campaigns, advertisements, etc. There are always many ways to make the abstract point. <BR/><BR/>Free speech isn't just about being able to convey some abstract message ... it's about many other things, including being able to express your message in the way <I>you</I> find most appropriate or compelling or emotionally powerful. This might involve parody, or quoting another message in such a way as to frame it ironically (essentially what was done here), or going at it indirectly by criticising a contrary view put forward by someone else, or using images or gestures, or rhetorical language ... or many other techniques or combinations. The fact that the same abstract message could have been conveyed in some other way, e.g. in expository prose or by a talking head reading words from an autocue, is simply not relevant.<BR/><BR/>E.g. if someone burns a flag it's not relevant that they could have said whatever it is that they intended to convey (e.g. "I hate such and such country" or "I repudiate the policies of such and such country") by using words. Under US law, the flag burning would be protected speech, and no one could get away with arguing that the same point could have been made without burning the flag. Perhaps it could be, but free speech is much wider than that.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43623720850799965722008-06-05T16:40:00.000+10:002008-06-05T16:40:00.000+10:00I disagree - everything suggests that the song wa...I disagree - everything suggests that the <B>song</B> was not "criticized" in the film - instead, the secularism which it happens to mention (not at all uniquely) was "criticized". Shouldn't a "fair use" ruling require that use of the specific copyrighted material in question was necessary?<BR/><BR/>To me, this seems like nothing to do with "free speech" - the "points" made during the <I>Imagine</I> sequence could equally have been made without using any of the recording whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46776028510501240252008-06-05T12:16:00.000+10:002008-06-05T12:16:00.000+10:00Absolutely well done, Russell! I only wish I had s...Absolutely well done, Russell! I only wish I had said it first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com