Matt Drudge says he has been warned.
The audacity of what Matt Drudge reports about the Court position in an upcoming ruling on copyright law and the internet stuns me incredulous. Contrary to what Drudge reports about what the Court is about to rule, I would think that the ruling could swing in a completely opposite direction if we think about protecting free speech. In fact, I would hope it would. This hearing on copyright domain right strikes me as a prime platform from which the Court could launch a legal strike down of all copyright laws once and forever. It seems to me that there needs to be a new definition of what it means to be in the public domain. Public figures, privacy rights and public actions. It occurs to me that once a source has published then it is in the public domain. The expediency of free speech requires that any and all free individuals have a right to comment on, quote and link thoughts, posts and publications to any and all information, intellectual property published publicly when referring to said material publicly. Any inhibition of the right to freely share reference links should be looked upon as pure anathema to free speech. If our Supreme Court is truly of the Republic then the word being passed to Matt Drudge is heresy in my mind: a legal blockade on free speech. If our Supreme Court rules in favor of copyright law as Drudge reports then I would think the court would be ruling in impeachable jurisprudence. If that is the correct lingo for such shenanigans.