There will be a lot more of this. YouTube et al have “permanently changed the media landscape” if you have a band without a record deal or an amusing video ready to go viral, but they have no commitment to anything more challenging than that. In the realm of ideas, they shy away from anything more contentious than vapid boosterism for conventional wisdom on “climate change”, etc.
(…)
Their technological iconoclasm is, alas, all too often accompanied by soft-left squishiness on broader philosophical points such as freedom of expression. I long ago lost count of the number of places, from Toronto Airport to Marriott hotels, that have SteynOnline blocked as a “hate” site…
***
Nobody seriously believes this is a copyright/”parody” issue, although a number of “conservative” pundits who happen to be, or pretend to be, lawyers, are getting off on taking this alibi seriously.
As not-a-lawyer, I feel obliged to point out that yes, the Supreme Court did elevate parody to almost sacred status, in the Jerry Falwell/Hustler case.
However, do note that the person bringing that complaint was Jerry Falwell, not the liquor company.
In the instance of “We Own The World,” the music publisher is the one complaining, not, say, Bob Dylan or the others portrayed in the parody. Does that make this a slightly different situation?
What if that infamous suit had been brought by Campari and not the Reverend, I wonder. Anybody?
