What would be an honest total price, for the IP rights to the (say) 3 dozen books which the Legions of Censorship most wants to remove from America's libraries?
Why aren't Anti-Censorship Heroes busy raising that sum, so that they can make all those books freely available on the web? Thus foiling the evil plan. Or, did The Atlantic just forget to mention that effort?
(Yes, my sense is that 99% of the folks on either side of this issue are motivated by ideological posturing and zeal for combat. Not by book availability.)
NoFunPedant · 2h ago
Here's another obvious-seeming question: Why should would-be censors be granted power over libraries? Instead of concocting expensive schemes to get around attempts at censorship, how about if we address the problem at the source by protecting libraries, which won't cost anything?
bell-cot · 56m ago
> Why should would-be censors be granted power...
> how about if we address the problem ... which wouldn't cost anything?
This is not a Philosophy 487 essay, where clever arguments about "should" have the power to determine your, um, er - your essay grade.
Reality is that they already have a great deal of power, and are gaining more.
Could you explain your idea for "addressing the problem at the source ... which won't cost anything"? I'm concerned that that's just a "if all the Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided to do the Right Thing..." daydream.
littlexsparkee · 4h ago
The problem is it doesn't end there, it's not scalable and presents a slippery slope to broader censorship
bell-cot · 3h ago
I've heard quite similar arguments against changing a baby's dirty diaper.
What would be an honest total price, for the IP rights to the (say) 3 dozen books which the Legions of Censorship most wants to remove from America's libraries?
Why aren't Anti-Censorship Heroes busy raising that sum, so that they can make all those books freely available on the web? Thus foiling the evil plan. Or, did The Atlantic just forget to mention that effort?
(Yes, my sense is that 99% of the folks on either side of this issue are motivated by ideological posturing and zeal for combat. Not by book availability.)
> how about if we address the problem ... which wouldn't cost anything?
This is not a Philosophy 487 essay, where clever arguments about "should" have the power to determine your, um, er - your essay grade.
Reality is that they already have a great deal of power, and are gaining more.
Could you explain your idea for "addressing the problem at the source ... which won't cost anything"? I'm concerned that that's just a "if all the Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided to do the Right Thing..." daydream.