[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[dvd-discuss] Life vs. profits -- the court thinks profits are more important

"speech may not be punished just because it makes it more
 likely that someone will be harmed at some unknown time
 in the future by an unrelated third party."

This is from the "Nuremberg files" case where names and address (and
status, killed or not) of abortion providers were filed on the internet.

Compare and contrast this with the DeCSS rulings in before the lower and
appeals courts and the Sklyarov case.  These courts seem to think that
actions taken by an "unrelated third party" that may infringe a
copyright allows the banning of the CSS related speech.

Here is a question -- if the addresses were instead links to mapquest,
would they be functional and thus subject to lower scrutiny?  Isn't an
address "functional" in the sense of a recipe or software?

It seems that when lives are on the line speech is free, but not when
corporate profits are risk...

too weird.