Maybe I'm wrong, but I had been told that the reason the US added fair use exemptions was to make sure our copyright laws were compatible with the first amendment, or else risk them being struck down.

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I had been told that the reason the US added fair use exemptions was to make sure our copyright laws were compatible with the first amendment

Copyright and free speech contradict each other - copyright is a form of legalized, privatized censorship. You can argue that copyright is OK - but then better take a look in the mirror and don't argue against the censorship in China etc. . Or you can argue against censorship, but then you must argue against copyright, too.

Regardless of whether that is true, if law is modified for a specific purpose, that does not imply that its effects are limited to that specific purpose. If fair use was added to ensure copyright law would not violate the first amendment, it is still possible that fair use covers more than is protected by the first amendment.