It's not a ban. If Nintendo decides to stop making Switches, they aren't banning it. Stop calling it a ban. The publisher owns the property rights to those books.
So, in your mind owners of intellectual property are not justified in managing that property as they see fit?
no, the point is about the justification itself. There is a difference between mere explanation and true justification. There are some reasons that provide actual justification and other reasons are bad reasons that do not justify.
also note that the ebay example has nothing to do with ebay being the "owner of intellectual property." ebay is intervening in a market ostensibly for moral reasons. Their stated moral reasons do not justify their intervention in the private transactions between buyers and sellers on ebay.
even Brian Leiter seems to have gotten the joke, and he generally has no sense of humor at all https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2021/03/jason-brennan-on-dr-seuss.html
The Seuss estate should be able to do whatever they want for whatever reason they want regardless of their reasoning. Ebay on the other hand needs to be consistent. For example, I just checked And you can buy the Little Brown Koko books. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nk...l1311&LH_Auction=1&_odkw=negro&rt=nc&_sacat=0
This is technically and also legally true. On the other hand, estates sometimes have an additional stewardship role that goes beyond merely legal rights and responsibilities. Does the estate of Dr. Seuss have some sort of broader, additional obligation here as steward over the entire Seuss oeuvre? This gets tricky: my understanding is that members of the estate's board/advisory board are family members themselves, who have involved themselves in the decision to take these titles out of circulation. One might reasonably question their motives: are they doing this to spare themselves personal embarrassment? are they doing this because of a sincere and genuine belief that these titles are harmful to children? are they doing this out of a sense of their (monetary) fiduciary to the estate and think perhaps (and perhaps mistakenly) that taking these titles out of circulation may prevent future economic losses to the estate from litigation? we can't really know the answers to these questions, we can only go by what the trust itself has divulged. And that's pretty weak sauce, actually. The "Chinese" man with "sticks" is about all I've seen anyone say is "harmful" in the Mulberry Street one. Is that sufficient justification (not just explanation) for taking that title out of circulation? I don't think it's a very strong argument or explanation for that matter. Some of the other ones may be more compelling. yep and actually, upon just looking quickly through the Mulberry Street book just now to get that page scan on BannedSeuss, it seems to me that the SPIRIT of the entire book could accurately be described as encouraging a type of multiculturalism that we might all find refreshing, even inspiring. Is the one reference to the "Chinese" man with "sticks" (and the illustration) enough to justify cancelling a book whose whole point seems to be in praise of the melting-pot type atmosphere of Mulberry Street? this is the Huckleberry Finn dilemma by the way: yes, Twain used the n-word repeatedly throughout the book; but the entire point of the story is to show Jim rising in stature as an equal in Huck's eyes. Huck Finn is a parable of the racial divide in the US then and now, and how that divide might/could be bridged--as it is for Huck. Yes. Huck Finn should be taught with so-called 'trigger warnings'; or possibly not even taught at all, in the sense of forcing people to read it. But it would be another thing entirely to say that we should take Huckleberry Finn out of circulation, or prevent people from accessing it.
Please do not self censors, because I deem your justification as weak? Sounds like a strong desire for censorship of others. Maybe you feel book should have some special right to existence (insert justification for it) and is protected from removal?
Washington Post piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/04/oh-books-that-youd-ban/?arc404=true Oh, the books that you’d ban! By Matt Bai MARCH 4, 2021 Congratulations! Today is your day! You’re unwriting the writers who wrote the wrong way! Some of the writers we loved, sad to say, Wrote hurtful and ignorant things in their day. But you’re on the case! You won’t delay! Throw them away! You’re on your way! Your motives are pure, your intentions are true, Your rightness rings out like the black cockatoo! Not pleasant to think it, but what’s true is what’s true. These books mock Black people, Asians and Jews. (Who knew a racist drew Cindy Lou Who!) It’s all up to you! You know just what to do! “Book-banning!” they shout. “Of course not,” you beam. “Book-banning is only an Internet meme! The publisher heard our ear-splitting scream, And decided they wanted to be on the team! A book is a product, whatever it seems — Why, it’s no different from selling some fancy face creams!” They’ll attack you, of course, this you already know, Call you a fascist! Say you’ve hit a new low! Shout about canceling on their cancelable show! You’re not deterred, though. To Twitter you’ll go! It’s comforting there, in the Twittified air. And there you will see how the others agree! They know just what to read, and just how to be! They know just what to do with our dark history! Erase it, don’t face it, and just let it be. So bang the big drum! Play the didgeridoo! You’re making things better! You’re thinking anew! Except when you don’t. Because, sometimes, you won’t. You see … There are writers we’d never ask into our homes, Who’ve nonetheless wrought our most sought-after tomes. Awful bigots who wrote brilliant novels and poems. You can get lost down there, amid gray catacombs, In the moral morass where hypocrisy roams. There are writers, it seems, whose un-wokeful crimes, Are mostly the ghostliest signs of their times. Twain and Fitzgerald, T.S. Eliot’s rhymes, And what of those Curious George pantomimes? The slopes can get slippery as you hike and you climb. What old art can endure in this new paradigm? But on you will go, Though the Trumpists cry foul. On you will go, Though the purists will howl. On you will go, Past the gullies of doubt, To the clearing where fearing and bullies win out. And will you succeed? Yes, you will, indeed! (In the bluest of counties, at least, guaranteed.) You’ll paint the naysayers as racists and outcasts! You’ll banish the doubters with shaming and bombast! Oh, the books you’d ban! You’ll get all mixed up, as you’re soon bound to find, With people who have their own banning in mind, and with whom you may not be so closely aligned. In this Thicket of Woke, where morality’s clear, The babbling beasts of oppression rove near, eager to make many more books disappear. But that’s not you! That’s not your attitude! We can trust you to choose between harmful and rude! It’s so simple to sort the obscene from the nude! To banish what’s ugly, and protect what’s just lewd. So run to the library! Hip hip hooray! We’re vanishing books now. You’ve gotten your way!
Goes to show anyone can write a opinion piece at WaPo. So this guy also doesn't understand that a publisher has intellectual property rights and it was their own decision which now it seems like it was a tactic to increase sales of Dr Seuss books.
well it certainly gladdens the heart to see such stalwart defenses of absolute property rights come to the rescue!! Spoiler https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/the-term
Are you saying that one should not have control of property they own and be able to legally do whatever they want to with it?
Are you saying that intellectual property rights are absolute? Spoiler https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-con...f-Rights-are-Intellectual-Property-Rights.pdf
Are you saying someone who owns the publishing rights to a book should be forced to publish a book? Don't need to quote an article. Just answer the question and your thoughts. I think this is a clear example of your views being entirely shaped by being anti-liberal than being whatever you claim to be (libertarian?).
People in favor or supporting the getting rid of Dr. Suess are the no better than Nazi book burners. It starts with this and then you can do it to any book. You brown shirt censorship loving twats deserve the coming hard days.
