Bush appointee Christie rips off Monty Python in NJ gov race

[GePap]

Political speech is protected from governmental intrusion or censorship. That is NOT the same as being protected from civil actions by other private parties, which is what a lawsuit about copyright enfringement would be. The constitution is about protection from government, NOT all private parties.
The fair use doctrine lays out non-profit or educational uses, or satire, as exclusions - how do those categories fit a campaign ad?

[DinoDoc]

TRENTON -- Republican Chris Christie defeated Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine to become New Jersey's next governor, the Associated Press projected.

Voters also elected all 80 members of the state Assembly, filling two state Senate seats, deciding whether to let the state borrow $400 million to preserve open space and picking winners in local races. But the big race -- perhaps the nation's marquee contest -- was for governor.

With 79 percent of precincts reporting as of 10:15 p.m., Christie had 49 percent of the vote and Corzine registered 45 percent. The margin was 99,000 votes. Independent Chris Daggett was at 5 percent, and nine other minor candidates split nearly 1 percent.

Christie, a headline-grabbing, corruption-busting U.S. Attorney under President George W. Bush, sought to capitalize on years of baked-in anti-Corzine sentiment among voters, who for years have registered a negative view of Corzine's job performance, and concerns about the economy. New Jersey has lost 168,500 jobs in the last 21 months.

"Jon Corzine's done a lousy job. Corzine's not a good leader. He doesn't know how to handle taxes. He raised the sales tax. He didn't balance the budget. Property taxes are going up, up up and education not getting better in the state," said Edison resident Rich Rotondo, who voted for Daggett.
...

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20091103/POLITICS/91103062

[Kuciwalker]

Political speech is protected from governmental intrusion or censorship. That is NOT the same as being protected from civil actions by other private parties, which is what a lawsuit about copyright enfringement would be.

A copyright infringement suit would be based on a federal statute which is subject to the First Amendment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just have to hope Hoffman can make it through.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hoffman conceded. A HUGE blow for the conservatives who really have no clue how NorthEastern Republicans (like Christie) are.

[GePap]

A copyright infringement suit would be based on a federal statute which is subject to the First Amendment.

What!?

To repeat:

A copyright enfrigement lawsuit is a civil action between two PRIVATE parties. ALL laws are subject to constitutional scrutity, either the federal or state constitutions. That doesn't mean that private parties must abide by constitutional limits on the enfringement of speech. If I have a bullhorn and someone steals it to start making a political speech, I have every right to take it back. His first amendment rights do not supersede my property rights. While there are differences between physical property and intellectual property, the same basic principle applies - private property rights do NOT come second to someone's right to free speech as a matter of course. Every single incident must be examined on its own merits.

[Kuciwalker]

What!?

To repeat:

A copyright enfrigement lawsuit is a civil action between two PRIVATE parties. ALL laws are subject to constitutional scrutity, either the federal or state constitutions. That doesn't mean that private parties must abide by constitutional limits on the enfringement of speech.

You're an idiot.

Hypothetical federal statute: "a person may sue someone else if the other person says something mean."

This is obviously unconstitutional, and a suit based on this statute would be thrown out on constitutional grounds.

Hypothetical federal statute: "a person may sue someone else if the other person reproduces the first person's speech/artwork/etc."

Also obviously unconstitutional.

The First Amendment supersedes Article 1 Section 8, for the obvious reason that it is an amendment to the Constitution.

Fair use isn't just a thing Congress did to be nice to us, and is not the limit of exceptions to copyright. Even if Congress had never defined fair use, there would be copyright violations that would not be grounds for a suit because they counted as protected speech.

[GePap]

What!?

To repeat:

A copyright enfrigement lawsuit is a civil action between two PRIVATE parties. ALL laws are subject to constitutional scrutity, either the federal or state constitutions. That doesn't mean that private parties must abide by constitutional limits on the enfringement of speech.

You're an idiot.

Hypothetical federal statute: "a person may sue someone else if the other person says something mean."

This is obviously unconstitutional, and a suit based on this statute would be thrown out on constitutional grounds.

Hypothetical federal statute: "a person may sue someone else if the other person reproduces the first person's speech/artwork/etc."

Also obviously unconstitutional.

The First Amendment supersedes Article 1 Section 8, for the obvious reason that it is an amendment to the Constitution.

Fair use isn't just a thing Congress did to be nice to us, and is not the limit of exceptions to copyright. Even if Congress had never defined fair use, there would be copyright violations that would not be grounds for a suit because they counted as protected speech.

1. Unlike you, I happen to work in the law-writing business (also known as a Legislature), so having you attempt to explain how the law supposedly works is really funny, well, no. Amendment means change, not that what is an amendment somehow supersedes other parts - one part of the constitution carries no more innate weight than any other - they both happen to be in the constitution.

2. The second hypothetical is IN NO WAY OR FORM a violation of the first amendment. Again, that amendment is only a prohibition on GOVERNMENTAL limitations of speech. The fact that we DO have laws that say that I could sue person X if person X happens to reproduce my work proves that you are wrong. This is specially true if my speech/artwork/whatever was made by me for the prupose of economic gain. If someone else starts copying my stuff, they are profiting from my idea without gaining my consent. Last time I looked, that is the very meaning of copyright, and those laws have been in existance longer than the constitution, and their constitutionality has never been questioned. The only argument is when is it in the public interest to allow for an idea to spread, as opposed to nurturing new ideas by allowing persons to profit from them. That is the balancing test.

[Kuciwalker]

1. Unlike you, I happen to work in the law-writing business (also known as a Legislature), so having you attempt to explain how the law supposedly works is really funny, well, no. Amendment means change, not that what is an amendment somehow supersedes other parts - one part of the constitution carries no more innate weight than any other - they both happen to be in the constitution.

Oh. My. God.

You seriously don't believe later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier ones?

Pray tell, how do you explain the 18th and 21st amendments?

Seriously, you can't be this dumb. This is zakudl level dumb.

2. The second hypothetical is IN NO WAY OR FORM a violation of the first amendment. Again, that amendment is only a prohibition on GOVERNMENTAL limitations of speech

Please explain how the second hypothetical differs from the first in that regard

[Kuciwalker]

zakudl: I was in the army, therefore I'm an expert on the US constitution!

gepuppy: I'm a low-level clerk for part of a municipal government, therefore I'm an expert on the US constitution!

[Ben Kenobi]

Hoffman conceded. A HUGE blow for the conservatives who really have no clue how NorthEastern Republicans (like Christie) are.

It's disappointing, but it's way better than electing Scuzzyflava. Killing a RINO before the election is an accomplishment. I don't really understand what the GOP was thinking appointing her.

Owens has to be watching his back in 2010.

As it is, 3/4 ain't bad. Maine lost as well. Obama's health care is likely finished now.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think Kuci should apologize to zakudl for comparing him to GePap.

[DinoDoc]

Hoffman conceded. A HUGE blow for the conservatives who really have no clue how NorthEastern Republicans (like Christie) are.

If Dede represented the Republicans of NY-23 as well as you claim, Hoffman would have had no traction in the district, no? To me this whole sad situation argues more for the need of a primary to select a candidate rather than the backroom selections that gave us Dede.

[Lorizael]

Kuci, lay off the KHness.

[Drake Tungsten]

Kuci is worse than KH. KH only calls people "****"; Kuci calls them "GePap", which is much worse.