The withdrawal of the good seasons of Law & Order from all streaming services is the 21st century burning of the Library of Alexandria, my forthcoming essay for the Atlantic Month...
Not only is Homicide -- one of the greatest shows in TV history -- not streaming anywhere, the out of print DVDs (which I fortunately own) will cost you 400 bucks
We could go on like this for a while. The Larry Sanders Show, one of the greatest TV comedies ever, was unavailable for streaming for years, and is available now only because Garry Shandling proactively made a deal from his deathbed
Again, libraries "ban" books -- i.e. remove them from shelves to the reference collection or discard them -- as a routine practice, because shelf space is limited and also people keep writing new books. The idea that this is inconsistent with free speech is ludicrous
There are very real issues with rights holders just sitting on artistically valuable properties and refusing to make them easily or at all available -- Homicide and Law & Order being unavailable sucks! -- but they're COPYRIGHT issues, not free speech issues
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
National Review's editorial strongly opposing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act/HR 1 is certainly carrying on the long tradition established by Bill Buckley
One of the strongest points of Allen v. Farrow, IMHO, is its argument that the Yale/New Haven report asserting that Dylan wasn't credible is pretty much junk (which was also the conclusion of the judge that ruled against Allen in his paternity suit.)
Even leaving aside the Catch-22 that structured the analysis -- inevitable inconsistencies over 9 (!) interviews mean she's lying, consistency means she's been "rehearsed" -- destroying the interview notes leaves no way of verifying the claims in the report
And there's other circumstantial evidence that they were in the tank for Allen:
He's just another orthodox Reaganite spawned by Rush Limbaugh, and his politics have precisely as much substantive populist content (i.e. absolutely none) nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/…
The *real* distinguishing feature of Hawley's career, though, is that he's intensely interested in getting the cv-polishing jobs made available by the Federalist Society affirmative action network, and has zero interest in actually doing any work when he gets them:
Another amazing thing about Seussghazi is how many people seem to be forgetting that "you can't quickly compare prices for used books and order one for immediate home delivery" was...how things were for *all* books until about 20 years ago!
Anyway, I can't believe that we're not talking about the REAL scandal, Bill James's refusal to license the first five Abstracts for publication! I had to go to the Hall of Fame library in Cooperstown to look at some of them, which is the day free speech died in America
I brought up the Abstracts is a joke, but actually I think there's a larger point here so lets run with it a bit...
Basically, once we start with the fundamental truths that 1)most books go out of print and 2)most books are eventually removed from public libraries with highly limited shelf space any attempt to construct an argument that this in any way constitutes "censorship" crumbles
The obvious tell here is that the most of the culture warriors trying to make this a thing immediately start talking about The Cat In the Hat and other Seuss books people actually read rather than defending the value of most or any of the actual books that are going out of print