Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - May 4th, ’24

[JackSpratts]

Since 2002































May 4th, 2024




The Internet Archive's Last-Ditch Effort to Save Itself

A lost lawsuit, a flimsy appeal, and misleading public statements... things aren't looking good for the Internet's archivist.
Bryan Lunduke

On April 19th, The Internet Archive filed the final brief in their appeal of the "Hachette v. Internet Archive" lawsuit (for which, judgment was handed down, against Internet Archive, last year).

What is curious, is that this final brief fails -- almost completely -- to reasonably address the core issues of the lawsuit. What's more, the public statements that followed, by The Internet Archive, appeared to be crafted to drum up public sympathy by misrepresenting the core of the case itself.

Which suggests that The Internet Archive is very much aware that they are likely to lose this appeal.

After a careful reading of the existing public documents relating to this case... it truly is difficult to come to any other conclusion.

The Internet Archive does some critically important work by archiving, and indexing, a wide variety of culturally significant material (from webpages to decades old magazine articles). In this work, they help to preserve history. A extremely noble, and valuable, endeavor. Which makes the likelihood of this legal defeat all the more unfortunate.

What is "Hachette v. Internet Archive"?

Here's the short-short version of this lawsuit:

The Internet Archive created a program they called "Controlled Digital Lending" (CDL) -- where a physical book is scanned, turned into a digital file, and that digital file is then "loaned" out to people on the Internet. In 2020, The Internet Archive removed what few restrictions existed with this Digital Lending program, allowing an unlimited number of people to download the digital copy of a book.

The result was a group of publishers filing the "Hachette v. Internet Archive" lawsuit. That lawsuit focused on two key complaints:

1. The books were "digitized" (converted from physical to digital form) -- and distributed -- without the permission of the copyright holders (publishers, authors, etc.).
2. The Internet Archive received monetary donations (and other monetary rewards) as a result of freely distributing said copyrighted material. Again, without permission of the copyright holders. Effectively making the Internet Archive's CDL a commercial enterprise for the distribution of what is best described as "pirated material".

That lawsuit was decided, against The Internet Archive, in 2023 -- with the judge declaring that "no case or legal principle supports" their defense of "Fair Use".

That judgment was appealed by The Internet Archive. Which brings us to today, and thier final defense (in theory).

What is the final defense of The Internet Archive?

Let's take a look at the final brief in The Internet Archive's bid to appeal this ruling.

In true Internet Archive form, a PDF of the final brief in their appeal has been posted to Archive.org.

The general defense of The Internet Archive is fairly simple: The Internet Archive's "Controlled Digital Lending" falls under "Fair Use". And, therefor, is legal.

Let's look at two of the key arguments within the brief... and the issues with them.

Not "For Anyone to Read"

"Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read"

This argument -- part of the brief's Introduction -- is quite a strange defense to make.

The "Controlled Digital Lending" program, starting in March of 2020, literally posted a massive book archive "online for anyone to read". This was branded the "National Emergency Library".

Good intentions aside, the Internet Archive is now attempting to claim that they did not do... the exact thing that they proudly did (they even issued press releases about how they did it).

As such, I don't see a judge being swayed by this (poorly thought out) argument.

"Because of the Huge Investment"

"... because of the huge investment required to operate a legally compliant controlled lending system and the controls defining the practice, finding fair use here would not trigger any of the doomsday consequences for rightsholders that Publishers and their amici claim to fear."

Did you follow that?

The argument here is roughly as follows:

"It costs a lot of money to make, and distribute, digital copies of books without the permission of the copyright holder... therefore it should be legal for The Internet Archive to do it."

An absolutely fascinating defense. "Someone else might not be able to commit this crime, so we should be allowed to do it" is one of the weirdest defences I have ever heard.

Again, I doubt the judge in this case is likely to be convinced by this logic.

There are many other arguments made within this final brief -- in total, 32 pages worth of arguments. But none were any more convincing -- from a logical perspective -- than the two presented here. In fact, most of the arguments tended to be entirely unrelated to the core lawsuit and judgment.

The Court of Public Opinion

Let's be honest: The Internet Archive looks destined to lose this court battle. They lost once, and their appeal is, to put it mildly, weak.

Maybe you and I are on the side of The Internet Archive. Maybe we are such big fans of Archive.org that we want to come to their defense.

But feelings don't matter here. Only facts. And the facts are simple. The Archive's actions and statements (and questionable legal defense) have all but ensured a loss in this case.

So... what happens next?

What do you do when you have a profitable enterprise (bringing in between $20 and $30 million per year) that is on the verge of a potentially devastating legal ruling which could put you out of business?

Why, you turn to the court of public opinion, of course!

And you spin. Spin, spin, spin. Spin like the wind!

Here is a statement from Brewster Kahle, founder of The Internet Archive", who is working to frame this as a fight for the rights of Libraries:

"Resolving this should be easy—just sell ebooks to libraries so we can own, preserve and lend them to one person at a time. This is a battle for the soul of libraries in the digital age."

A battle for the soul of libraries! Woah! The soul?!

That's an intense statement -- clearly crafted to elicit an emotional response. To whip people up.

But take another look at the rest of that statement. The Internet Archive founder says that resolving this case "should be easy". And he provides a simple, easy-to-follow solution:

"just sell ebooks to libraries so we can own, preserve and lend them to one person at a time"

Go ahead. Read that again. At first it makes total sense... until you realize that it has almost nothing to do with this specific case.

Let's ignore the "one person at a time" statement, which is a well established lie (the Internet Archive proudly distributed digital copies of physical books to anyone who wanted them, not "one at a time").

But take a look at this proposed resolution... note that it has very little to do with the actual case. The case is about the digitizing of physical books, and distributing those digital copies without permission of the copyright holder. This proposed resolution is about... selling eBooks to lenders.

Yes. Both have to do with eBooks. And, yes, both have to do with lending eBooks.

But that is where the similarities end. And the differences, in this case, are absolutely critical.

Let's take a look at the actual ruling -- which The Internet Archive is attempting to appeal:

"At bottom, [the Internet Archive’s] fair use defense rests on the notion that lawfully acquiring a copyrighted print book entitles the recipient to make an unauthorized copy and distribute it in place of the print book, so long as it does not simultaneously lend the print book. But no case or legal principle supports that notion. Every authority points the other direction."

The Internet Archive's publicly proposed resolution does not address this ruling at all. Which means that, when talking to the public, The Internet Archive is being dishonest about this case.

But they are using flowery language -- "battle for the soul of libraries" -- so they'll likely manage to convince many people that they're telling the truth and representing the facts of the case fairly and honestly. Even if they are not.

There Are Important Disagreements Here

None of which is to say that the points which The Internet Archive is making... are necessarily wrong.

From the announcement of their appeal, the Archive states the following:

"By restricting libraries’ ability to lend the books they own digitally, the publishers’ license-only business model and litigation strategies perpetuate inequality in access to knowledge."

While this statement is designed to evoke specific feelings and responses -- among specific political demographics (see: "perpetuate inequality") -- there is an underlying set of issues here that are worth thinking about.

• Is it important that libraries be able to lend official digital editions of books?
• Should publishers, authors, and other copyright holders be forced to supply digital versions of their written works to libraries?
• If digital works, borrowed from a library, are then copied and distributed more than the rights allow... who is ultimately responsible for that? The library? The creator of the software system which facilitated the lending? Nobody at all?
• Should Libraries or Publishers be able to censor or modify digital works... or should a published digital work be maintained as it is at time of publication? (This issue comes up a lot when talking about censorship and revisions of works.)

These are legitimate questions. And, while the answers may appear obvious, there truly are distinct disagreements among publishers, authors, and libraries.

Some of these issues are raised by The Internet Archive, BattleForLibraries.com, and others.

The "Battle for Libraries" campaign

But none of these questions -- not one -- are part of the ruling in "Hachette v. Internet Archive".

The question that has been answered in this case is simply:

• If you buy physical media (such as a book), can that media be digitized and distributed on the Internet (without authorization or notification of the copyright owner)?

And the answer is, thus far, a resounding... "No".

The Can of Worms

What happens if the judge chooses to uphold the existing judgment against The Internet Archive?

A number of things seems possible (with some seeming like a downright certainty).

• Publishers, authors, and copyright holders of works distributed by The Internet Archive may choose to seek damages. Which could put The Internet Archive in a precarious financial position (to say the least).
• The Internet Archive may be forced to remove other content of questionable copyright. Including software, video, and audio archives.
• Other archival projects may now come under increased scrutiny... thus making it riskier to archive and distribute various types of material.
• And, of course, The Internet Archive could attempt to appeal the case ever higher. Which may be tricky.

Then again... The Internet Archive could win this appeal.

Unlikely. But, hey, weirder things have happened.
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5556...to-save-itself





Kids Online Safety Act Is a Smokescreen for Online Censorship

Any “safety standards” for speech will be the first step onto the slippery slope.
James R. Lawrence, III

The proposed bi-partisan Kids Online Safety Act purports to address concerns that social media exacerbates depression, eating disorders, and a host of other mental health problems among our nation’s youth. Sixty-five Senators, including conservative stalwarts such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Ohio’s J.D. Vance have co-sponsored the bill, and Joe Biden endorsed it at the State of the Union. On April 9, Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida, together with Representatives Kathy Castor of Florida, Erin Houchin of Indiana, and Kim Schrier of Washington, introduced it to the lower chamber.

On the surface, this bill seems appealing. Who could oppose children’s safety and mental health? Unfortunately, KOSA exploits this concern to incentivize censorship and fund research that is likely to be used to advocate for more speech suppression.

Consider KOSA’s censorship carrot. The bill would create a duty of care requiring “covered platforms,” including free speech platforms like Rumble and X, to take “reasonable measures” to prevent “online bullying and harassment.” The bill does not define “bullying and harassment.” In a world where many maintain that “speech is violence,” it is not surprising that these terms have been invoked as go-to justifications for deplatforming conservatives. YouTube’s “harassment and cyberbullying” policies include “insults” and “slurs” based on “protected group status” such as “immigration status” and “gender identity and expression.” Thus, misgendering or calling someone an illegal alien has been deemed harassment. Before Elon Musk took over Twitter, the platform applied its targeted harassment as including misgendering and inviting newly-unemployed journalists to “learn to code” and later to attack satire.

FOSA also funds the National Academy of Sciences to make additional “recommendations related to public policy” about “remedies regarding the harms to minors posed by social media.” The National Academy has already begun similar studies with a report on Social Media and Adolescent Health. The report’s lead editor is Boston University Public Health Professor Sandro Galea, who previously called “hate speech” a “public health issue” and singled out then President Trump’s immigration policies as well as “policies [that] are being promulgated that will limit hard-won gains in transgender rights” as “particularly dangerous from a population health vantage.” Unsurprisingly, the National Academy’s chapter on “online harassment” states “political name calling on social media is cited as a starting point for digital harassment.”

The bill also empowers the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General to enforce and interpret the law. Many Democratic State Attorneys General have demanded platforms censor “disinformation” and “hate speech” under the guise of fighting harassment. For example, in 2020, three state AGs wrote to Facebook “to request that you take additional steps to prevent Facebook from being used to spread disinformation and hate and to facilitate discrimination” in the form of “redress for users who fall victim to . . . harassment.” Dozens more have written similar letters. KOSA would give these advocates yet another arrow in a considerable quiver from which to draw in order promote censorship of ideological adversaries. That is not to mention left-aligned plaintiffs’ lawyers who might leverage the “duty of care” the statute creates to go after free speech platforms.

The FTC hinted at what it would consider “reasonable measures” to combat harassment in a 2022 report, Combatting Online Harms Through Innovation. The report outlined “reasonable policies, practices, and procedures” for digital platforms to use AI to address “harms” such as “hate crimes,” “election-related disinformation,” and “harassment.” Among the recommendations: tech companies needed to retain and “create and maintain diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible cultures” for “groups like Black in AI, Queer in AI, and LatinX in AI.” Despite the enthusiasm for FTC Chair Lina Khan among some populist conservatives, this record does not make the Commission seem ideal for determining “reasonable” policies around online speech.

That KOSA has bi-partisan support is reason for more, not less, skepticism. Section 230 itself, the legal shield Big Tech used to censor disfavored speech in the runup to the 2020 election, was a bi-partisan achievement.

As a father of five, I understand the concerns about how social media affects kids, and we limit our kids’ screen time. No taxpayer-funded study is necessary to know that spending hours a day glued to screens is not good for anyone, much less children.

But empowering unelected bureaucrats and State AGs to enforce vaguely written rules about “bullying and harassment” will do nothing to help children’s mental health and lead to more censorship and lawfare against conservatives.
https://www.theamericanconservative....ne-censorship/





Supreme Court Allows, for Now, Texas Law Restricting Access to Porn

The law, meant to shield minors from sexual materials on the internet by requiring adults to prove they are 18, was challenged on First Amendment grounds.
Adam Liptak

The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to block a Texas law that seeks to limit minors’ access to pornography on the internet by requiring age verification measures like the submission of government-issued IDs.

As is the court’s custom in rulings on emergency applications, its brief order gave no reasons. There were no noted dissents. A petition seeking review of an appeals court’s ruling upholding the law remains pending.

A trade group, companies that produce sexual materials and a performer challenged the law, saying that it violates the First Amendment right of adults.

The law does not allow companies to retain information their users submit. But the challengers said adults would be wary of supplying personal information for fear of identity theft, tracking and extortion.

Judge David Alan Ezra, of the Federal District Court in Austin, blocked the law, saying it would have a chilling effect on speech protected by the First Amendment.

“By verifying information through government identification, the law will allow the government to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” wrote Judge Ezra, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

“It runs the risk that the state can monitor when an adult views sexually explicit materials and what kind of websites they visit,” he continued. “In effect, the law risks forcing individuals to divulge specific details of their sexuality to the state government to gain access to certain speech.”

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed. “The age-verification requirement is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in preventing minors’ access to pornography,” Judge Jerry E. Smith, who was appointed by Reagan, wrote for the majority. He was joined by Judge Jennifer W. Elrod, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, another Reagan appointee, dissented, saying that the law chills free speech rights and could limit adults’ access to popular shows and films like “Game of Thrones,” “The Color Purple” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.”

When the majority declined to put its decision on hold while the challengers seek Supreme Court review, Judge Higginbotham again dissented, saying that the case “begs for resolution by the high court” because the majority opinion “conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.”

After the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Pornhub, one of the most-visited sites in the world, suspended its operations in Texas.

The appeals court’s majority relied on a 1968 Supreme Court decision, Ginsberg v. New York, which allowed limits on the distribution to minors of sexual materials like what it called “girlie magazines” that fell well short of obscenity, which is unprotected by the First Amendment.

That decision applied a relaxed form of judicial scrutiny. But in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union in 2004, the justices blocked a federal law quite similar to the one from Texas, applying the most demanding form of judicial review, strict scrutiny, to find that the law impermissibly interfered with adults’ First Amendment rights.

Judge Smith, writing for the Fifth Circuit majority, said the earlier decision was the one that mattered. He reasoned that the Ashcroft decision contained “startling omissions” that undercut its precedential force.

The challengers, represented by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union, told the justices that the Fifth Circuit was not entitled to second-guess the Supreme Court.

“This case presents the rare and noteworthy instance in which a court of appeals has brazenly departed from this court’s precedents because it claims to have a better understanding of the law,” they wrote.

In urging the Supreme Court to leave the law in place while it considers whether to hear an appeal, Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, said pornography available on the internet is “orders of magnitude more graphic, violent and degrading than any so-called ‘girlie’ magazine of yesteryear.”

He added: “This statute does not prohibit the performance, production or even sale of pornography but, more modestly, simply requires the pornography industry that make billions of dollars from peddling smut to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure that those who access the material are adults. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.”

The plaintiffs had also challenged a second part of the law requiring sites to post “public health warnings” about the harmful effects of pornography, saying that the First Amendment bars such compelled speech. Judge Ezra and all three members of the Fifth Circuit panel agreed, and the challenge to that provision is not part of the Supreme Court case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/u...ourt-porn.html





His Book Was Repeatedly Banned. Fighting For It Shaped His Life.

“The Chocolate War,” published 50 years ago, became one of the country’s most challenged books. Its author, Robert Cormier, spent years fighting attempts to ban it — like many authors today.
Brian Raftery

In the 50 years since it came out, “The Chocolate War” has become one of the country’s most challenged books. But the tensest battle over the novel may have been fought in Panama City, Fla., in the mid-1980s. That’s when an attempt to ban “The Chocolate War” divided the town, leading to arson and death threats against middle-school teachers.

Early in 1986, English teachers at Mowat Middle School protested a schoolwide ban against a select number of novels, including Robert Cormier’s “The Chocolate War.” The book, published in 1974, had been long been criticized by some parents for its modest locker-room talk and anti-authority worldview — and enjoyed by the young in part for the same reasons.

The Mowat teachers endured all sorts of harassment because of their stand. Pranksters called in the middle of the night, calling them lesbians and witches. Parents harangued them at community meetings. Even some of their colleagues turned against them.

That fall, a sloppily addressed letter was found at the Mowat offices. It featured the words “YOU ALL SHALL DIE” in letters cut out from magazines, and mentioned several teachers by name — including Alyne Farrell.

“That was when the you-know-what really hit the fan,” said Farrell, now 76. “I was a single woman with a young child, and I lived alone. We had police sitting in our driveway for three days and nights.”

Yet the teachers had a notable ally: Cormier himself.

Not long after the “YOU ALL SHALL DIE” message arrived in the mail, another letter made its way to Mowat. This one was part apology, part lament.

“I have been at a loss for words,” Cormier admitted in his note. “The ironic thing is that words are my business, and the words I used in my books have been the cause of so much trouble.”

Cormier died in 2000 at age 75. A trove of his letters and essays at Fitchburg State University provide a glimpse at how an author’s life is affected when a book unexpectedly inflames a long-running war. Many writers are having a similar experience today, with books facing opposition at libraries and schools nationwide — including, once again, in Panama City.

As Cormier would remark to one of his children, “I’m weary of the battle, but a tired fighter can still be a fighter.”

For a book that proved to be so provocative, “The Chocolate War” had an innocuous enough birthplace: the Cormier family dining table in Leominster, Mass. During dinner one night in the fall of 1968, Cormier’s son, Pete, told his father he’d been tasked with selling chocolates as part of a fund-raiser for his private school.

The elder Cormier, who was no fan of authority, told his son he had his permission not to participate — he didn’t have to go along with the crowd.

“He was encouraging me to take a stand,” Pete Cormier said in a recent video interview. “I was a skinny freshman — a low man on the totem pole — and this made me feel like a rebel.’”

Over the next few years, while working as a newspaper editor and columnist, Robert Cormier stayed up late at night, spinning Pete’s minor act of defiance into “The Chocolate War.” The book follows a small-town freshman named Jerry Renault, whose refusal to sell candy for his school earns him the ire of a manipulative headmaster and the vengeance of an underground student group known as the Vigils. By the book’s end, Jerry has been harassed, beaten and ostracized, leaving him just as alone as ever.

“The Chocolate War” wasn’t an easy sell: Several editors rejected the book, citing its violence, language and pessimistic message. But teens in the 1970s were eager for stories that reflected their angst and anxieties, and novels like S.E. Hinton’s “The Outsiders” and Judy Blume’s “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” had become hand-me-down hits.

The relatably bummed-out tone of “The Chocolate War” — paired with Cormier’s economical prose and hyper-specific recall of adolescent cruelty — was aimed at young readers who’d become skeptical of the grown-ups running their world.

“You don’t have to go to a Catholic boys’ high school to realize that the school system is inherently screwed up and manipulative,” said the actor and filmmaker Keith Gordon, who wrote and directed a 1988 adaptation of Cormier’s book.

After its release in 1974, the book went on to become one of the most celebrated young adult novels in the country — and one of the most hotly contested.

It spurred book-ban attempts in towns like Proctor, Vt. (where the novel was assailed for its “negativism”); Columbia, S.C. (for “pervasive vulgarity”); and Groton, Mass. (for “less than wholesome sexual activity).”

Cormier spent hours responding to the various book-ban squabbles — a job he resented at times. “I am furious, because I would rather be working on my novel,” he wrote in a draft for an essay. “Or even looking out the window, thinking about my novel.”

In many cases, the book was eventually reinstated, though in some cases, students still needed special permission to get a copy. “Even when you win, you lose,” Cormier wrote.

By the late 1980s, a conservative political wave was sweeping the country, and opposition to “The Chocolate War” — as well as some of Cormier’s subsequent books — increased. According to a 1987 report by the People for the American Way, “The Chocolate War” was by then the most-challenged book in the United States, ahead of “The Catcher in the Rye” and “Of Mice and Men.”

“The fundamentalists are certainly rolling in high gear,” Cormier wrote in 1987, “and it gives me the chills.”

He responded by inviting educators to his Massachusetts home, granting numerous interviews and corresponding with supporters and critics alike. He was anguished when he heard from teachers whose jobs were on the line because they wanted to use “The Chocolate War.” He wondered if he should encourage them: “Do I have the right to ask others to risk themselves,” he wrote, “while I remain safe?”

The Mowat Middle School fight troubled him.

“The attacks have accelerated,” Cormier told the Mowat teachers. “I feel very guilty these days as I sit at my typewriter … other people are fighting my battles.”

Such battles would continue well into the 1990s and 2000s, making “The Chocolate War” one of the few young adult novels to aggravate grown-ups across multiple generations. As of January, it was still on at least one banned book list in Florida.

For all the book-ban skirmishes Cormier waded into, nothing had prepared him for the ordeal in Panama City.

The fight had been ignited not by “The Chocolate War,” but by another Cormier novel: “I Am the Cheese,” his 1977 thriller about a troubled young man who can’t remember his past. When the parent of a Mowat seventh-grader objected to the book — citing its language and “morbid and depressing” tone — school officials immediately yanked it from classes, along with a few other titles, including “The Chocolate War” and Susan Beth Pfeffer’s “About David,” a 1980 novel about teen suicide.

For Farrell, whose ninth-grade English curriculum at Mowat included “I Am the Cheese,” the decision felt like a step backward. She and several other teachers had spent years revamping the school’s English department, getting rid of decades-old grammar textbooks and looking for provocative new stories that would get their students interested in reading. Cormier’s novels were a perfect fit.

The Mowat teachers pushed back on the ban, prompting an angry backlash. A grandparent with connections to Mowat was so offended by “The Chocolate War” that he took out an ad in a local paper, highlighting snippets of the book’s dialogue that included words like “bastard” and “goddamn.”

“Your child’s TEXTBOOKS,” the ad read. “HAVE YOU READ THEM?”

“Once they lit into poor old Robert Cormier,” Farrell said, “he didn’t stand a chance.”

Public meetings grew tense, and according to one account from the time, a school superintendent barged into the English department’s workroom and scolded the teachers for championing “depressing” books. Predictably, the controversy made the book a best seller in local stores.

Then things turned scary: After a local TV reporter revealed that a petition supporting the ban contained invalid signatures, she woke up to the smell of smoke and found that a flammable liquid had been set ablaze under her apartment door.

“When I see the situation at Mowat, I can only shudder,” Cormier wrote in a letter to the teachers. “I remember being in precarious situations as a reporter, but never with death threats and arson.”

Book banning in Panama City continued, eventually growing to include such classics as “The Great Gatsby” and “Twelfth Night.” It wasn’t until a group of students — led by Farrell’s 13-year-old daughter, Jennifer — filed a federal class-action lawsuit in 1987, claiming their constitutional rights had been violated, that officials slowly began returning titles back to classrooms.

Eventually, Cormier made his way to Panama City and met with the Mowat teachers.

“He wanted us to know that he was pleased,” Farrell said. “He was giving us all the credit.”

By then, the dust-up in Panama City was quieting down. But, as with so many book-ban fights, no one walked away from the battle feeling triumphant.

“There was no big victory,” Jennifer Farrell, now 50, said. “Everyone lost. It was a time when the excitement of fighting against oppression should have been uplifting, and it wasn’t at all. In the end, it made the entire community suffer.”

Still, for all his regrets about the trouble “The Chocolate War” had caused for others, Cormier continued to defend it staunchly in the last years of his life.

“The message of ‘The Chocolate War’,” he noted, “is that evil succeeds when good people allow it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/b...-cormier-.html
















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

April 27th, April 20th, April 13th, April 6th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black

[gazdet]

Sorry About the Downtime... I was away and didn't get the memo

[JackSpratts]