Stardate 20040126.1205

(Captain's log): There have been interesting emails traveling back and forth as a result of my post yesterday where I commented on something written by a young lady named Annelise.

This morning I received this from her:

Just to let you know, I have removed my website. I have received so many personally abusive and threatening emails from readers of your website that it's just not worth it. I have not responded to them but some of the things these people said about me personally have upset me hugely. And to clarify, this is not about receiving emails from people whose viewpoints differ from mine. It's about receiving emails from people who have no qualms about attacking me personally. And despite the fact that I have been told not to come by one correspondent, I will not be cancelling my trip to the US later this year.

To repeat: you do not have permission to quote my writing (including emails or what was published on my website) on your website. I can't stop you providing links but I can ask you not to publish things I have chosen to remove from the public domain.

What follows is the letter I wrote back to her:

It's apparent that you're not familiar with the law.

When you post something on the internet it does not enter the public domain. You retain copyright. Under the Berne convention, copyright is automatic unless explicitly waived.

But once it has been waived, and has been placed into the public domain, it cannot be withdrawn again. However, you did not do that, and you retain copyright over your writings even though you posted them online.

Works which are copyrighted may not be copied without permission of the owner of the copyright. However, copyright law contains certain explicit exceptions, one of which is known as "fair use". What that means is that other people can directly quote small sections of your work without permission, and doing so does not violate your copyright as long as the quotes represent only a small part of the original work. In particular, that may be done as part of writing reviews or commentary, and that is what I did.

I do not need your permission to quote small parts of what you wrote. I do not require your permission to link to your site. I do not require your permission to write comments about what you said. Under the First Amendment and under the Fair Use exceptions of copyright law, I may do those things even if you do not want me to.

If you choose to remove your site that is your decision to make, but I will not make any changes whatever to what I have posted on my site just because you have a thin skin and are unwilling to take responsibility for what you wrote and what you think.

Part of participating in a democracy is accepting that your opinions may be unpopular. If you are patriotic, and if you truly think that your nation is embarked on an incorrect course, then you owe a duty to the nation to speak up and to try to convince your fellow citizens of that fact. That process will inevitably be difficult and you will suffer much abuse in doing so, but to avoid that duty is to fail your country.

I receive abusive mail all the time because of my site, and some of it is very hurtful. It is part of the price I pay for attempting to engage in the broad public debate taking place now about just what happened to us and what we should do about it. It is a small price, a tiny sacrifice compared to what some others make.

I care about my nation and I want it to survive, and I cannot stand idly by while events such as these unfold; I must participate and attempt to influence the direction my nation follows, because if it follows the wrong path it could lead to disaster. I do this because I feel I have a duty to do so as a citizen. Citizenship gives us many benefits but it also involves duties, and this is one of them. Public debate about national policy is an essential part of the democratic process in our system.

The term which is often used for this is "the marketplace of ideas" and what our system is based on is the assumption that if enough people with a broad enough range of opinions speak their minds, and if others listen to them, then out of the discourse and rancor will come a clear consensus, which will then become public policy. That's why the First Amendment was ratified.

That is what I am doing, and that, apparently, is what you refuse to do.

The word "patriot" has been much bandied about lately, and in some quarters it is considered an insult. But that's because its meaning has been distorted.

At its most basic level, patriotism is the willingness to make personal sacrifices for the good of the nation. Some patriots have sacrificed everything by dying for their nation. Others make lesser sacrifices.

And some refuse to make any sacrifices at all; they expect their nation to give them much, but refuse to give anything back. Such people are unpatriotic.

That you disagree with the policy followed by your nation is clear. That you are deeply ashamed of what it has done is equally clear. Do you love your nation enough to try to make it better, by working to change that policy with which you so deeply disagree? Are you willing to make any sacrifices for your nation in order to make it better?

Are you a patriot, Annelise?

Apparently not. You are not even willing to suffer having your feelings be hurt by a few nasty letters as the price for trying to help make your nation better.

If Susan B. Anthony and her fellow suffragettes had been as sensitive as you, the 19th Amendment would never have been ratified and you would not have the right to vote in American elections.

Update: Just to clarify a point which seems to have confused some people: the original article written by Annelise made clear that she was an American expatriate living in New Zealand.