Pat Roberston Claims Gays Intentionally Spreading AIDS; Abuses DMCA To Stifle Criticism
from the holy-hell dept
Okay, I'm beginning to notice something of a trend. It seems to me that while we typically highlight instances of copyright law and the DMCA process used for censorship purposes, an odd bit of momentum is building up behind advocate and evangelical (not to be read strictly as religious) groups, which you would think generally want their ideas and concepts spread as far and wide as possible, being the perpetrators of this intellectual property bullying. Serving as examples are a "straight pride" group going ballistic when their own arguments are put on display and a doctor who advocates against home-birthing trying to silence her own provocative speech. I simply don't get it.Yet we continue to see examples in which IP law is used to censor self-speech in this way. Take another foray into technology by Pat Robertson, whom we last saw saying that crimes committed in video games were equal in sin to crimes committed in real life. This time, the Christian Broadcast Network, which carries the flagship The 700 Club led by Robertson, has been issuing DMCA notices for clips of the show in which Robertson informs the faithful that homosexual activists are intentionally spreading AIDS among the pious by shaking their hands while wearing a ring with a sharp puncture device that has infected blood on the tip.
Now, let's be clear: For the purposes of this article, my view, your view, anyone's view on sexuality is irrelevant. We're here because Robertson said this, other groups are using the video as commentary, and the CBN is actively attempting to censor the videos using intellectual property law. That's the issue at hand. Case in point, the Rightwingwatch.org site linked above is obviously also an advocacy group with their own agenda with which you may not agree. That doesn't matter. They have their right to speech the same as anyone else and the CBN abusing the law to try and stifle the inevitable backlash over Robertson's false statement is wrong no matter whom you agree with. The good news is that, in this case, the other DMCA shoe has dropped and some of the videos that had been taken down by YouTube are now back up after the appropriate counter-claims were filed. That said, it's ridiculous that any counter-claim was necessary in the first place. Robertson is an evangelist; you'd think he'd want his words out there as much as possible, if he actually believes what he says. Censorship using government law is something you'd think religious groups would be actively opposed to, not employing.
And, in the meantime, this story is now traveling in far wider circles than it would have if the CBN hadn't raised a censorious finger. Way to go, all around!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, pat robertson, takedowns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Ted Nugent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a Christmas miracle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect assumption in the article..
But he's the performer here - he's not the copyright holder. CBN is the copyright holder, and (given the fact that they deleted this clip before it hit the air) they know how insane this makes Robertson sound. CBN, not Robertson, are the ones who deserve the flack for issuing the fraudulent DMCA notice.
Oh sweet FSM, look what you made me do - you have me defending Pat Robertson! I feel dirty, I'm gonna go have a shower and see if I can wash some of this shame off me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect assumption in the article..
What I want to know is what are they doing with that money, not Pat but his handlers, his administrative team, the people helping him make decisions.
I think the recent documentary about his ministry's actions in Africa, "Mission Congo" is likely tugging at a tiny loose string that could lead to bigger snarls and get others caught up in the mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect assumption in the article..
I knew one of the cohosts for The 700 Club, and she assures me that Pat Robertson really believes what he says. And that he's batshit insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a paraphilia based on that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a paraphilia based on that
Or did you think you could just try and dilute the insane mewling of this old man and the attempt to use the law to hide the statements.
The discussion is abuse of a legal system meant to serve a single purpose and that purpose is NOT to cover up making oneself look like a flaming cockhammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He needs to get off the air quick...
But this year, he's turned into a raving stooge like the uncle that makes racist jokes all the time while everyone just winces. I mean, even if the "on purpose needle" thing has happened, it's certainly not a regular occurrence and definitely not something that happens often enough to put on a nationally syndicated TV show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
The attempt by CBN does not in any way stifle the free speech of someone who themselves state Robertson's views.
That may be a VERY narrow distinction, but in the black-white world of law, CBN has all the inherent rights to control use of the video: critics have none. I don't see any "fair use" argument made here; Timmy is just having fun with an easy target.
"Robertson's false statement" -- WELL, that's Timmy's manifest bias: he doesn't know, just assumes it's factually false. But as his own malicious streak shows, intentional infection is not out of the question; just because they're "AIDS activists" doesn't make them automatically in the right, EITHER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
Right, except unlike you I actually clicked on that Snopes link that demonstrates that it's a false statement. Way to be an idiot, Blue. At least you're consistent....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/19/us/man-knowingly-exposed-62-women-to-aids-virus. html
The false statement is pretending that this is unique to gay men, and using that misdirection to spread bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
Under this train of thought, The Daily Show couldn�t criticize Fox News by using clips from Fox News.
The criticism of others' words, actions, and expressions via replaying, quoting, or otherwise �using� copyrighted material clearly meets the requirements of the Fair Use defense against copyright infringement (and would have a clear-cut First Amendment defense on their hands to boot).
it's a fairly clear and perfectly valid use of property rights to prevent enemies from using your own material
If the government decided that someone doesn�t deserve First Amendment protections for quoting copyrighted material because the copyright holder considers them an �enemy� in any sense, such a decision would chill free speech everywhere.
The attempt by CBN does not in any way stifle the free speech of someone who themselves state Robertson's views.
It does, actually. Printing words said by a person does not offer the same context as listening to/watching that person say those words. Offering up the video both validates any quotes (because it proves he said those things) and presents the exact context, delivery, and voice behind the quotes. Commentary on those things damn near requires viewing the original video, and CBN using copyright to either stifle or lessen the impact of such commentary reeks of an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment so it doesn�t have to deal with any embarassment.
And last I checked, embarassment doesn�t qualify as a solid reason for gutting the First Amendment rights of others.
CBN has all the inherent rights to control use of the video: critics have none. I don't see any "fair use" argument made here
You don�t see �fair use� because you don�t want to see it. You�d rather see the Fair Use defense drawn and quartered in the middle of a highway than admit it both exists and serves a useful purpose in protecting the freedom of expression.
So let�s see�you hate due process, you hate reading articles in full, you hate Fair Use�but you totally love black-and-white readings of copyright law that have the potential to gut the First Amendment at its very core. (And need I remind you, any censorship brought about by copyright amounts to government-sponsored censorship since the government controls copyright.)
he doesn't know, just assumes it's factually false
When you can prove that multiple gay people have begun to use "AIDS rings" to infect anyone with the disease, you can call Robertson�s claims true. Until then, do everyone a favor and go back to crying over Charles Carreon�s defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
He's not a copyright maximalist, he's trying to make the maximalists look as psychotic as possible. Now we're supposed to add "bigot" to all of the despicable adjectives used to describe him? That's just too easy of a path to generate additional scorn.
Of course, thanks to the NSA, these days I assume the lies go all the way to the top. Is Mike paying him to generate traffic? (I have to admit, the complete debunking of his barely decipherable rants by the audience here is one of the most entertaining aspects of this site) Or could it even be Mike's alter ego?
ootb, the copyright maximalist, is about as real as reality TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
Then lets do an amateur 4 factor test here, see what I come up with. But first, how about a definition of the fair use doctrine from Cornel University: (emphisis mine)
Given that you yourself admit you are talking about criticism (quote: "...critics have none.... it becomes clear that fair use is automatically a consideration. Its the first purpose that Cornell university cites as a possible fair use application.
Now, since you can't read into a statement and need a outright four factor test every time we claim fair use, here is one:
The first Factor is Transformative use (Purpose and Character of Use):
In this consideration the fact that, as you admit, the work is being distributed to highlight and comment on a small piece of a larger segment indicates the transformative nature of the use. In sharing this specific piece, it allows commentary and discussion and new information to focus on the area being criticized.
The second factor is the nature of the work:
Because the data being shared is Factual, namely this is an actual recording of actual opinions expressed by actual people, it is not a fictional work and therefore we the public have greater leeway for fair use (few creative elements are present for us to infringe)
The third factor is The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken:
As highlighted in the Transformative test, the clips being shared narrow around the comments being discussed, with the necessary context. Not sharing this portion of the broadcast removes the 'proof' of what was said, and the proof that it wasn't a mistake of context.
The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market:
While an argument could be made that the criticism of the clip reduces the market for Pat Robertson, that is not what the test looks at. The test considers whether fulfills the demand for the original. This clip fulfills the need for the clip, but not the need for the show. It does not in any way replace the show it was taken from. It might harm the market, but so would a bad review. Copyright infringement cases are not determined on harm to the market, they are determined on the ability for the work in question to replace the original work.
While I am not a judge, nor a lawyer, I look at this work and see fair use, and therefore not infringement. Since you claim it is not, I ask you perform a four factor analysis and come to a different conclusion, so we can analyze it. I highly doubt a defense lawyer would look at such a clear case of journalistic commentary and criticism involving a real person making highly inflammatory commentary with no validation, source, or justification (that looks like hate speech), and not support a fair use claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
Wait, what? Citation, please. Good luck with finding any statutes or case law to back up that lunatic statement. What next, title deeds for copyright?
Which they can't if they're not made available. Reportage is one of those things fair use is for. Besides, how do you prove that Robertson said any of those things if you can't link to anything? It's your word against his, and the evidence has been suppressed.
No, they have the right to control distribution of the whole for profit, not snippets for comment. You don't know much about copyright law, do you? Are you really suggesting that reviewers ask for permission to review items like broadcasts, etc.?
Can you point to even ONE example of someone putting infected blood on a ring, then shaking hands with someone to cut them and pass on the infection thereby? Just one. Of course not. Bigot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
There are a lot of people in the world, and so a lot of crazy people. I could believe that one of the crazy people might have tried something like this at one time (although it does sound an awful like like that ancient phony scare story of gays putting used hypodermic needles in the coin return of pay phones).
So there might possibly be a single example. But one crazy person does not a conspiracy make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't censor yourself! -- Everyone is free to criticize Robertson WITHOUT using CBN material.
Even if he could, it wouldn't prove the assertion. The claim is that "the gays" are doing this, so a single example wouldn't prove anything of the sort. There would need to be evidence of a trend, of some sort of pre-agreed agenda, of numerous attempts to do this. Evidence of a single individual doing this doesn't mean he did it because he was gay any more than because of his race, age or eye colour (although, interestingly, it could be down to religious beliefs) - and even if he claimed it was, that wouldn't prove he was anything other than delusional by itself.
I doubt that a single documented example exists, but even if it did there needs to be a higher burden of proof to target a group rather than an individual with such criticism. Not that this matters to bigots, of course, who are quite happy to latch on to even urban legends to justify their hatred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think even the bible he doesn't seem to read says something about that, something about bewaring of hypocrites and false prophets, and when they finally meet God face-to-face, they'll go, "But Lord, we made many prophecies and performed many miracles in your name!" and he'll be like, "What the hell are you talking about? I never knew you, you great frauds."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does bring him in hypocricy territory but there is nothing wrong with that in this day and age!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, his god is *way* more of an asshalo than my God. And my God used to turn people into pillars of salt just for looking in the wrong direction."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is yet the latest high profile example of the poorly written law being used in ways not intended. How many of these abuses of our rights don't get as much attention?
What they allow happen to the least of us harms all of us, it is time to fix this and stop burdening 1 side over the other, and have even punishments for BOTH sides when they violate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two reasons probably
2. Fixing it would step on the toes of some very large 'contributors', who quite enjoy having a broken system in place that allows them to go after competition or people/sites they don't like without having to worry about any 'accidental' collateral damage that may occur in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two reasons probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two reasons probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pat Robertson is an evil person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Projection
Evil in a suit mouthing the word of God is still evil. How else would the Devil lead so many astray, than by appearing as a false man of God like Robertson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gays intentually spread AIDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]