Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8502821" data-attributes="member: 7023840">You mean the legal blog site. Not his "column," but the running website with numerous academics? That ... column? Okay. You know that this isn't a column, or even a post from that website, but an actual law review article (that he made available minus the citations).And, by the way, that's EV (Eugene Volokh) given that he is one of two people with that surname (Sasha, aka Alexander).No, that's not what it's about. Look again at page 5- it has enumerated mechanisms that the remainder of the article discusses. Here, let's try one!It can change people attitudes about the propriety of further action. That one is easy, right? So, let us assume that a group, we will call them the Morin Majority, pushes hard for private businesses to remove things that they don't like because they think that it causes harm and offends them. Should they succeed, others will do so as well! Because it has become proper to do so. Unless people start to make stands on principle (I don't want groups pressured to remove things) then this will become the norm- again, this is different tha n just voting with your wallet, or trying to educate people.But wait, there's other applications!The change on its own may be small enough, but in concert with other changes may create momentum for larger changes. For example, few people would decry the loss of GAZ10 on its own. Or OA on its own. Or any number of other legacy books, on their own. But each change makes it more likely that further changes can be made.And, again, this was about you being dismissive regarding slippery slopes. Remember?Again, if life was as simple as an XKCD comic, that would be great. There are people who understand state action who still necessarily opposed to pressuring private actors to remove their product- because principles of free speech matter.It's basic rule utilitarianism as far as I am concerned- I value the rule, even when the application might seem suspect. We see this in many situations. For example, to use a legal analogy again, we often note two truths- the first is that all people can be represented in court proceedings by counsel. The second is that attorneys get to choose their clients. From these two things, we get the following-A. When "the other side" is pressuring attorneys to drop out, people say that it's unfair, and that everyone has the right to have counsel.B. When "our side" is pressuring attorneys to drop out, people say that attorneys get to choose their clients, and people are just choosing to make the attorneys have consequences for their choices.It's the same here. When the other side has power, and is trying to restrict private entities from providing something, we will complain about the principles involved (as I had to do throughout the 80s and 90s and 00s). But when our side is doing it, when we have the power ... what?Sorry- the hard slog of education, and teaching, and allowing sunlight to be the best disinfectant might seem old-fashioned, or too hard, or maybe just not even relevant given the last few years- but it's the principles that have gotten us to where we are today. Where we can celebrate diversity. Where we can recognize inclusion. Where people can game together openly regardless of their gender expression, or race, or creed, or any number of factors.That's me. YMMV. For the rest- search my prior posts. This is a too-long thread.</blockquote>

Verification