I always get uncomfortable when copyright issues are conflated into free speech issues. I feel it's generally used incorrectly to give more legitimacy basically to people wanting to distribute material they are not permitted to.
I have always championed the right to free expression, whether that is an individual hosting content or a company deciding what content it wants to host and how to display it. The government should play no part in either case.
Copyright infringement is not protected speech. Google is free to provide or not provide results however they see fit.
To me- freedom of speech is the right of citizens to criticize the government without reprisal.
This does not mean that adversaries have the right to flood our airwaves with propaganda, lies, and other bullshit under the guise of protected speech.
Free speech is about expression. It doesn't say anything about consumption. I think congress can ban the feeding of copyrighted content to AI. But IANAL.
So what it means is that copyright can not be used as a means to censor free speech? Well, that's what I understood anyway.
That's still interesting. And although I also found the wording very confusing, I upvoted it (I usually do this as a bookmarking method). Please, don't hate me!
I didn't posit the right to freedom of expression. It's been around a long time. And I don't pirate anything, and do produce work that would qualify for copyright, so how is it convenient for me?
As for your second point: I should support bad laws because otherwise I must be supporting anarchy? Is that seriously your argument? Perhaps you should give it more thought...
reply