re: #548 CuriousLurker

The difference is that Geller makes a lot of claims about her motivations—human rights advocacy, patriotism, etc.—very few of which ring true when compared to her actions. In fact, her right to bigoted free speech is one of the few things she doesn’t misrepresent.

The photographer, OTOH, doesn’t appear to be claiming anything other than her legal rights to her intellectual property.

We both agree that what Geller may be saying about herself is not very enlightening, and in any case it is not a part of my point. The point is about the motivations. The existence of rights themselves does not necessarily result in specific motivations. There are the so-called 2nd amendment rights, but if I know that a person is stockpiling weapons, I’m no more wise for knowing that they have that right - I want to know why they are stockpiling. If a person abuses free speech, like Geller does, I want to know why they’re doing that. If a person does something with their copyright that doesn’t make sense to me - I want to know why they’re doing it, and not merely that they’re entitled to it by law (I already know it). On the latter issue I have gotten a couple of satisfactory answers, including the one from you about “no specs work”. Moving on ;)