On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
While this is true, there's a very deep issue in the definition of "protected".
No there isn't, it's just that '...no law...' is onconvenient for people who believe they are angels among men: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The problem is better rendered that the courts have taken the view that the protection of (intellectual) *property rights* trumps the free-speech concerns here.
The problem is that courts believe they can interpret the constitution instead of as actually worded, being limited to laws made 'under' the constutition. A major distinction. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------