Search options (Page 73 of 151)

It isn't that Amazon (or another platform) is careless.  They are uninvolved by policy, and by contractual agreement.

The question of defamatory speech bears little legal resemblance to the question of responsibility for damage due to a release from a well, nor to the question of keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.  On the latter question, I suggest you read the opinion(s) (including concurrences and dissents) on both the Heller and MacDonald cases.

The harm from a spill is evident and demonstrable.  Harms from defamatory speech are harder to prove, and the shield of our First Amendment is broad.  For example, if I call you an incestuous bastard (using coarser language), the tone of the language is such that few people or none will interpret those words literally, and except in very special circumstances, no US court will entertain a lawsuit based on the literal meaning of the words.  Likewise, prior restraint against speech is justified in very few cases, national security secrets being one.

To hold third parties responsible who have no involvement in the speech except to carry if from the speaker to the market where it may be purchased by willing buyers would be to force those carriers to be gatekeepers, whose interest would always be to shield themselves.  The effect would be prior restraint, a heckler's veto enforced by fear of the court.

To return to the Deepwater Horizon analogy, it would be like saying that anyone who sold required safety gear for the workers could be held liable in the event of a spill.  Soon no safety gear would be sold and no oil could be brought to market.  While some might welcome that, even cognizant of the effects on them and others, most would not.

The PLCAA was written to block lawsuits which would probably be lost in court, but which would be very expensive to defend, especially if brought en masse.  This decision is more akin to holding a bus company harmless if one of its passengers uses the trip to approach a place he is going to rob.

You don't like SF/Fantasy?  Would you consider =Stranger in a Strange Land= to be junk, or =The Moon is a Harsh Mistress=?  What about Bester's =The Demolished Man=?

Amazon certainly uses the law to its favor, but they are largely a pass-through operation.  They don't tell publishers what they will buy based on the views of buyers who work for them; they try very hard to measure consumer demand (and to offer things you're likely to buy).  They also stock PoD publications.  I won't call them Good Guys, but they do a closer job of representing the consumer with their algorithms than 'educated' buyers will, because the 'educated' buyers will impose their own preferences.

Take a look at #mswl where agents present their 'wish lists'.  It's loaded with calls for the fad de jour.  How large is the market, really, for transgendered lesbian vampire fiction?

The court's view was that because Amazon et al do not exercise any editorial control whatsoever, suing the platform would be like suing the owner of a self-service copy machine.

I'd say that any other decision would have destroyed the Indie publishing marketplace, because nobody could do a print run without exercising editorial control.  The freedom-of-speech and freedom of the press implications are larger.  Freedom of the press, it is commonly said, belongs to those who own one.  In practice, that means one who owns or rents one.  But who will offer one for rent if he will be held responsible for the words peinted?

Ever watch a show like Law & Order?  Characters are shown buying cups of coffee and hot dogs.  The vendors, waitresses, etc., never say anything because they are extras, represented by a different union from the actors, and paid on a different scale.  Once you say a word, you are ineligible and must go to the big boys' union.

I want to keep my extras extras.

One of the saddest things I ever saw:

I was hospitalized for an infection, and had to share the room with a number of people.   I was moved out of the first room; the other occupant was a boor who vomited all over the toilet seat and couldn't be bothered even to call someone to clean it.  The nurses had pity on me.

In the second room, the first 'roommate' was a man fairly deep in some progressive dementia.  He'd been in another care facility, which discharged him when they decided they couldn't handle him any more.  He ended up in the hospital while his daughters tried to arrange for home nursing and the necessary bed.  They were also trying to arrange for private duty nursing in the hospital, but it was nearly midnight and they couldn't get anyone quickly.

The daughters--late 30's, I would guess--were left to attend to their father's nearly constant, unregulated bodily needs.  After a few hours one of them came around the curtain to apologize for the unending activity.  I told her that none was necessary and that I admired how she and her sister were handling their situation.

That said, my own cultural sense says that a daughter should not have to attend to her father's bodily needs, nor a son to his mother's.  That clearly shaped part of B2-Maurand.

Eh?  Wot wuz I talkkin bout?

Not reading, exactly, but about dramatic technique: Video on Hitchock's blocking technique, see through one scene in Vertigo.

Okay,  I've got a version 0.0 (or maybe 0.(-2)) for Ch9.  I need to type it up, making the corrections I know of, and see what it looks like in print.  It might work better than I'd hoped, or it might be a disaster.

You're on my list, probably tomorrow.  I need to mull your chapter a bit.

I may mark time by working forward on things.  The whole point of this to use Pausonallie to bring Merrran and Jamen into an underground ensemble at the Academy.  I've got a lot of work to make that happen.  (Also, Ch10 is why they can't leave the kids with Pausonallie's family .. though they may end there eventually.)