Not correct. This is one of the things I dislike about the constitution and why when someone tells me I should go into law, I say that I would hate it. When the

Not correct. This is one of the things I dislike about the constitution and why when someone tells me I should go into law, I say that I would hate it. When the constitution says "freedom of speech", it has nothing to do with speech. What it is interpreted as is "freedom to express one's opinions". To be sure, this is better than freedom of speech. Speech is something that you do with your mouth. Freedom of speech does not explicitly protect your freedom to write stuff down, much less freedom to transmit information across a wire. It is only about speech. I wish the constitution actually said "freedom to express one's opinion". The problem with the way it is now is that the supreme court could easily take away our freedom of expression. Right now, they interpret freedom of speech to be freedom of expression but in the future they may change their minds and decide that "freedom of speech" really means "freedom to cook waffles". There really isn't that much correlation between what the law says and what we actually get out of it. But back to the main point, "freedom to express one's opinions" may not be limited by copyright monopoly. Copyright is over a particular way to express a particular set of opinions or facts, not over the opinions or facts themselves, so copyright doesn't apply.