NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8031248" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So, two points.First, I will continue to stand by what I will always say. When you have a principle (such as promoting free expression) it is worth the BS. Because if you don't support the unpopular speech, you don't have a leg to stand on when they come for your speech. What does that mean? Last night I was able to watch the 2016 original cast performance of Hamilton on Disney+ with a number of friends. This should have been a moment of sheer joy; obviously, it wasn't quite as powerful as it was live, but I was not fortunate enough to see the original cast live. But just think what an amazing time we live in. The largest entertainment conglomerate in the Unites States was broadcasting a Broadway musical (!!) made by a Latinx performer of Puerto Rican descent that re-imagined key aspects of our national history and placed POCs in the major representational roles, including Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Moreover, it merged American history, hip hop culture, and even shout-out to traditional Broadway standards into a seemless whole. And yet, today we have the Twitterati arguing over the offense caused by Hamilton, and how Hamilton (a musical that runs less than three hours) distorts history. I can't even.If you can't stand up for the rights of performers and artists to make art, if you instead are more concerned about your right to take things off the shelves by claiming offense, then you are correct.There is nothing to see here. I have seen this play out before, and I don't like where it ends. The question isn't- will this power be used responsibly; because this power will always end up being abused. Corporations will never stand up for their artists, will never stand up for speech, and will always go to the lowest common denominator. This does not make the culture richer, but poorer, and I will not be a part of that.Second, this evidences a massive misunderstanding of copyright law. I am putting that charitably; perhaps you understand it perfectly well, and this is your desired outcome. People keep saying this is about the sale of the product, but it isn't for media and art subject to copyright. For the two millionth time, this has nothing to do with the sale of the product. And it's truly obnoxious to keep conflating the issue.</blockquote>

Verification