Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Help Needed! Smith Barney Wants to Censor My Web Site!

 J. S. Greenfield ( wrote:
 >The other two examples are notably different, in that a book entitled
 >"The Smith Barney Book" and a newspaper column entitled "The Smith
 >Barney Column" could _easily_ have Smith Barney as its source.
 >Therefore, we have potential for a likelihood of confusion, and
 >therefore potential for infringement.
 Don't you think that preventing people from having those titles is an
 infringement of their free speech rights?  Especially in the newspaper
 case, or a free book (noncommercial).  I do.  And this has been the
 crux of my argument.  Your argument that "the message could be gotten
 out" by other means doesn't change the fact that it still an
 infringement of free speech.  Just like I said that most conversations
 can be carried out on the 'net without the word "fuck", preventing
 people from using it is still considered an infringement of their free
 speech in this medium.
 This is based on the way the word "fuck" is used currently on the 'net
 (and currently the way trademarks are used on the www).  It's just
 that it has gotten to a point where stopping it causes harm.  
 That fact that "fuck" might be trademarked by someone doesn't, and
 shouldn't, change things.
 I have tried to argue about this from a legal standpoint, where such a
 use could be considered as "accepted" by the legal system (without
 going into the issues of free speech).  You and others have said it is
 wrong.  It remains to be seen whether Lissack will lose in court
 though (he has changed his pages).  But if it isn't accepted by the
 legal system (if you are right), then I think it's sad.
 --Ram  ||  ||
                     Waiting for the revolution. Nuclear vision, genocide.
                                   Computerise god, it's the new religion.
                   Program the brain, not the heart beat. ---Black Sabbath