Re: Perle's libel suit

The first amendment is intended to put constraints on government action, not individuals. Thus, an employer can certainly restrain what the employee says during working hours. Thus, this "chilling effect", if it is due to private, not government action, is beyond the scope of the First Amendment. One does not have the right to spread lies about others. A chilling effect on such action would be beneficial.

Further, I have never been convinced that copyright has any real chilling effect on anybody. Fair use concepts, and the non-protection of factual information, ensures that copyright allows full discourse on any topic. Further, the fact that copyright infringement actions only make sense for continuing or financial harms, they have little impact on the everyday discourse in the real world.

-Bodi

• Original Message ----- From: "Keith Tabor" <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: SOT: Perle's libel suit

> I know that this is slightly off topic, but one of the
> main criticisms of copyright is the chilling effect on
> artists and the possible curtailing of what we in the
> US call our first amendment rights, ie freedom of
> speech.
>
> The article below discusses how the global marketplace
> may have a chilling effect on US journalist who may
> otherwise rely on their first amendment rights.
>
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20030317.html
>
> Personally, I hope that the administration reels Perle
> in before he makes a mockery of himself and those
> associated with him.
>
> keith
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>
Received on Wed Mar 19 2003 - 21:16:50 GMT