The ruling says that Wynn-Williams should stop promoting the book and, to the extent she could, stop further publication. It did not order any action by the publisher.
SHOULD: This word, or the adjective “RECOMMENDED”, mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
I’d ask how the Meta lawyer could sleep at night arguing such a bullshit and openly caustic line of rhetoric, but the answer’s probably “like a baby, in an extremely expensive and comfortable bed”
Not really “optional”, but more like the court knows they can’t stop the book from existing or being produced, as that would be actual censorship. This is an attempt to limit its reach and pretend it doesn’t exist, like the shadow banning on most social media whenever you say sex, fuck, death, shit or other bad-bad no-no words.
Emphasis mine. RFC 2119 strikes again :D
I’d ask how the Meta lawyer could sleep at night arguing such a bullshit and openly caustic line of rhetoric, but the answer’s probably “like a baby, in an extremely expensive and comfortable bed”
Um ackchyually RFC8174
(Agree with you though)
It’s only a clarification, not the definition of the significant terms
What the fuck kind of ruling is that? It’s optional?
Not really “optional”, but more like the court knows they can’t stop the book from existing or being produced, as that would be actual censorship. This is an attempt to limit its reach and pretend it doesn’t exist, like the shadow banning on most social media whenever you say sex, fuck, death, shit or other bad-bad no-no words.
Luigi
deleted by creator