[I]n the simplest sense, intellectual property rights allow individuals to call upon the state to prevent someone from speaking or expressing themselves in a particular way. This may involve a simple refusal to let the speaker use some sign, signifier or text in their message, or it may involve a refusal to let them transform it in some way, whether contextually or otherwise.  In either case, this type of effect strikes most directly at the person who cannot paraphrase around the restraints posed by intellectual property, who needs to use the particular text or sign in question to convey her message. For example, the San Francisco Arts and Athletics Association wants to assert its right to link its community with the noble ideals and images of the Olympic games.  Running a "Gay Faux-Greek Athletic Thingamajig" just isn't the same. The Nation magazine wishes to use President Ford's own words from his autobiography in describing his decision to pardon President Nixon. 46 In each of these cases, it is precisely the authenticity of the sign or the words that the speaker feels is crucial to his speech.

"The First Amendment and Cyberspace:  The Clinton Years," 63 Law & Contemporary Problems 337 (2000).  The full article is available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/63LCPBoyle.