And I thought Socialists were against the Right to Private Property? Seems like someone wants to defend Bernie’s Intellectual Property (a very important part of Private Property)? From Overlawyered we see some lawyers haven’t figured out that the Internet has a vote in all this. IMHO, this should be a flat out free speech issue, especially if in the political arena:
Daniel McCall of Liberty Maniacs has put out a parody image in which the likeness of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is lined up as the latest in a row of figures such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
And this is supposed to be surprising? Just LISTEN to the man and the role he wants Government in taking over ruling your life making major decisions for you AND taking most of your money in taxes for the privilege of doing so. What policy has he enumerated DOESN’T fit in with Marx, Lenin, and Mao? You go to the Kremlin for your honeymoon and not expect to be called “comrade”? Stand up for avowed socialists in South America (e.g., the Sandinistas)? Hold up Cuba and Venezuela as models? Well, he’s already set the stage. And then a lawyer got upset at this satire and invoked the Streisand Effect:
Yesterday, invoking the campaign’s trademark and copyright interests, a Seattle lawyer named Claire Hawkins “has demanded that McCall stop purveying this image.” It’s the latest in a series of aggressive moves by campaigns and candidates including Hillary Clinton, Ben Carson, and Ron Paul, as well as the Republican National Committee, to assert intellectual property as a reason for taking down works that play on their image in either unfavorable or favorable ways as a means of expression.
Well, now Claire Hawkins will learn the power of the Streisand Effect – named for singer Barbara Streisand protesting images of her home showing up all over so vigorously, she called more attention to her nuttiness (and her home) than if she had just kept her mouth shut. By sending that demand notice, Hawkins is about to get a whole lot more attention – and a diminishment to her reputation. Really, a lawyer trying to silence a political item of free speech? Of course she got a response.
So, Ms. Hawkins, tell me this – if you are all about defending Bernie’s Property, are you going to defend his taking of other peoples’ property (via very much increased taxes) to use as he wants? What is the difference, in absolute Principle, of not wanting Bernie’s “property” (and this image did not include any of his campaign trademark images) to be violated but not ordinary citizen’s?
Sounds like just another Socialist covering for another.
