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.
Emphasis mine. RFC 2119 strikes again :D
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”
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.
other bad-bad no-no words.
Luigi
deleted by creator
It’s only a clarification, not the definition of the significant terms
This document updates RFC 2119 by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.
In other news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The Streisand effect, the best free promotion you can ask for.
If only there was some kind of - instantly accessible worldwide publishing entity that could, say, display the book immediately on demand.
Damn, if only AI could come up with something so futuristic for us
“My mom says you need to stop”
She’s your mom, not mine; IDGAF.
Here’s a review of the book in the NYT that gives a taste of some of the awfulness:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/books/review/careless-people-sarah-wynn-williams.html
Anyone got a link yet? 😎
Libby link:
TL;DR: Author should stop promoting the book. Publisher can continue promoting the book.
