http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:30:05 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/09/073105.php#comment-31963 <i>first that the song used her name and likeness without her permission, second that it defamed her character</i> I'd like to know how she thinks this "defame[s] her character" in the first place. Luckily, that part's been thrown out, but the first is equally puzzling. I was not aware that the names of historical figures were not allowed to be used in, essentially, fictional works. Has a precedent been set before this that we're unaware of? And is anyone concerned about the precedent this case will set if the court finds in favor of Parks? 31963@blogcritics.org Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:30:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/09/073105.php#comment-31962 I've never quite understood what Rosa Parks is thinking here, or why this wasn't tossed out of court to begin with. I can't blame the SCOTUS for not hearing it since it's not that huge a freaking deal, but can someone with more understanding of the legal system explain what chance Rosa Parks has of actually winning this case? 31962@blogcritics.org Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:16:23 EST