Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8678522" data-attributes="member: 8461">Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so is relevant to this discussion.&quot;Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences&quot; is simply &quot;blame the victim&quot; dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from &quot;if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels&quot; to &quot;of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing,&quot; and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.That's highly arguable. While there's no way to measure it that I'm aware of, I'd say that while pay-for-download role-playing game supplements might be an extremely niche market, there's certainly an argument to be made that OneBookShelf has monopoly power within it, even if they don't have an out-and-out monopoly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 8678522, member: 8461"] Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so [I]is[/I] relevant to this discussion. "Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious. That's highly arguable. While there's no way to measure it that I'm aware of, I'd say that while pay-for-download role-playing game supplements might be an extremely niche market, there's certainly an argument to be made that OneBookShelf has monopoly power within it, even if they don't have an out-and-out monopoly. [/QUOTE]

Verification