Maybe you should respond to my argument instead of sidestepping with a personal remark. I could equally respond to you that "your definition may hold in your own world-view" and that "your interpretation of the facts of the case are just totally incorrect". I won't though because it's a silly emotional argument based on nothing.
In the end it boils down to a question of what is considered more important: corporate rights or public rights, corporate power or constitutional power, trade secrets or freedom of the press. (and even if you believe Think Secret, etc. do not constitute "the press" only someone with blinkers on would refuse to admit that a ruling in favour of Apple could have far-reaching implications for the press)
For those who are true patriots of the U.S. (i.e. those that love their country and their constitution) the answer will be obvious: the constitution trumps any corporation and should not be watered down to benefit corporations at the cost of the public. For those who love corporations (and often governments) more than their country the answer will also be obvious: corporate rights trump constitutional rights and shouldn't be let to stand in the way of profit and power.
|