Again; stay on topic (we are talking about her violating Federal Copyright Law and your claim that a photograph of a specific event looks "kind of like any other graphic") - and read what I write before responding to it. I did NOT quote Tina Fey ("i can see Russia from my house") and attribute it to Palin - I…

Also, ignorance is the lack of knowledge or information. The fact that you are ignorant of the meaning of ignorance yet try to use it to insult me is beyond hilarious. It also shows what an idiot you really are. No wonder you love Palin so much.

"So the only reason that Sarah Palin is an idiot to you is because you think she talks funny and doesn't conform to the ideal woman you would respect in the political world." Do you even bother reading things before replying to them? I never said anything about the way she talks - I am (and have been) speaking…

Like I said - I am not talking about her politics, only the way she chooses to present herself to the public. I am also not talking about other politicians. Your defense of her not being an idiot was giving examples of what other politicians have done and that she is personable. The fact that you can't see that being…

Ted Bundy was described (by his victims) as personable and charismatic. Does that make him not a rapist or serial killer? I have known people who were nice, personable, etc., that were also idiots. You don't have to be mean or callous to be an idiot. So she bought your support with cash. Doesn't make her not an…

That's nice. Doesn't make her not an idiot.

Claiming someone's not an idiot by pointing out flaws or poor judgement in other people does not make that person not an idiot.

Right - because someone who receives blessings to be protected from witchcraft is not an idiot.

She gets a bad rap because she's an idiot. An Idiot who violates federal copyright law. So yeah, that's what she's out there doing.

"Honestly, to me, this whole thing of her being sued for using a graphic that looks kind of like any other graphic seems kind of unfair." - she used a specific photo that is copyrighted, without the permission of the copyright holder. THAT is the the part that is "unfair", i.e. illegal. And you don't need to be an…

The copyright in ANY photograph (or text, painting, sculpture, etc) is owned by the creator by default (except with a contract stating otherwise, such as with "work for hire"), regardless of whether or not it has actually been registered with the copyright office. Once it's created, it's copyrighted. Photographs are…

What is shady about having ownership in the copyright of your own intellectual property?

..Because you are completely ignorant about how intellectual property and copyright laws work. Photographs ARE intellectual property (of the photographer) regardless of time, subject matter or whether it's a snapshot or something more "creative".

In regards to intellectual property and copyright, the answer to your question is "Nothing".

Well, the victim was a white male - so, not too surprising, given this is jezebel..

That's fine for you - or anyone making that kind of decision for themselves. But this father was aware of the rules, and consciously chose to make his daughter a target of discrimination. He should have taken a different route if he wanted to fight the rules (perhaps publicly address the Founder / Executive Director's…

What makes it worse is that the father was aware of the rules but chose to ignore them and send his little girl to school wearing a hairstyle that was against those rules - making the conscious decision to potentially victimize his daughter as a result.

What's also curious is that the administrative director definitely has some "faddish" hair going on: http://www.dbcschool.org/index.php?page… - which looks no more presentable or less distracting than this little girl's..

That is my opinion, I did not state it as fact. I was posting in regards to the open-ended, incomplete nature of the writer's comment, possibly leading readers to believe that the rule-makers were white. And based on some of the comments, that is exactly what happened.

No shit asshole. That still does not excuse incomplete, irresponsible "journalism" - especially when making a point about racism; given that it is so institutionalized, what better way to make that point than to point out when a racist rule was put in place by members of the same race that it targets? Seems like a…