Comment Casablanca shows your argument is technicality (Score 1) 431
You may be right about the technical meaning of "free speech" in American law. But in the broader context of what does it mean to communicate and debate in a democratic society, your description appears insular and shockingly ignorant of theoretical and empirical work about democracy and culture. The fact that courts once ruled that women were not persons did not in fact mean that women were not persons. It had legal effects, but it could not take away their personhood. Similarly, court interpretations of statutes concerning "free speech" do not define the limits of that term.
Public discourse is understood as foundational for democracy. Through speech and expression individuals express their interests in public, gather information to form opinions, sway others with argument, and form groups able to take effective political action.
The political significance of speech does not depend on it being original, unpopular or offensive. The opposite is true: it is when speech is popular - when it is disseminated and copied - that it becomes politically powerful. The unpopular words of one man don't matter. The same words uttered by many do. Classic examples include slogans like "no taxation without representation," iconic symbols like the peace sign, pamphlets like "Common Sense." Recall the scene in Casablanca in which the French stand up and sing La Marseillaise. It is not the words themselves that matter, or the fact that someone sings them: the whole point is that a whole people rise up and sing the same thing.
The idea/expression dichotomy is held up as defense. But it is flawed. It assumes that an expression expresses single idea (or set of ideas), and that each idea can be expressed in multiple ways. Casablanca illustrates the problem with this. The meaning of that song in that bar with the Nazi officers is not the *words* of the song. The meaning is the act itself, of singing in the face of the Nazis. The meaning is very different from the anthem sung on Armistice Day (the French equivalent of Remembrance Day). The same expression can be used to express original meanings. Furthermore, this particular expression is not substitutable. A bar full of French saying "we reject the Nazis" would seem pathetic, not powerful. Finally, this is a political - and democratic! - expression founded not on reason, but on emotion.
To the extent that copyright limits the dissemination of expression that can be used or repurposed with democratic or political significance, it impedes the free ability of citizens to speak and participate in democracy. The law may say that's not "freedom of speech" if it likes. It does not make it so.
Here is the scene in Casablanca. I am using it to make a political point. And copyright most definitely can stop me.