General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLimbaugh illegally using censorship.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/limbaugh-copies-michael-savages-bogus-copyright-theoryWe've seen some ridiculous DMCA takedowns over the years, but we might have a new champion. On Monday, radio host Rush Limbaugh -- who over a three-day period beginning in late February attacked Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke on air for the apparently unforgivable sin of testifying before Congress to advocate for legislation she supported (a bill mandating health insurance coverage for contraception) -- turned to copyright law to go after one of his most vocal critics, the left-leaning political site Daily Kos. The site's offense? Publishing a damning montage of Limbaugh's controversial comments about Ms. Fluke.
monmouth
(21,078 posts)Exactly like Hitler was #1 in Germany.
madokie
(51,076 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Unethically, Improperly, sure.
But what exactly is illegal about it?
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)I'm sure a better writer than me would find a more appropriate word. I should have chosen a word that you suggested. Or even the words in the dictionary definition of illegal: unlawful, illicit.
To be honest, I'm having a hard time coming up with a heartfelt apology to your criticism, even though I completely agree with you. In fact, unlawful or illicit are better terms for the conduct. Improper is much to mild for how sinister I feel Limbaugh is being. Unethical seems to imply that the conduct would remain taken down because albeit it wasn't an ethical way to use a DMCA take-down, it would still be legal -- which it wasn't.
I have a headache. I think you're being a bit nit-picky, with all due respect.