This is exactly the sort of thing we’ve been talking about on fc-uk-discuss at the moment. Copyright being used to prevent criticism that you don’t agree with. Or to prevent misrepresentation. Or to prevent downright lies by fanatical idiots:

Cory says Science shouldn’t use copyright to silence Creationists

But what about using copyright to stop personal claims, or misrepresentation of personal opinion? Is there a line beyond which not using copyright to stop others ascribing opinions to people that they don’t actually hold becomes morally unacceptable? And can it be described quantitively?

Technorati Tags: