Re: The Economist and e-Archiving

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

This argument is sufficiently refuted by mentioning two instances of
material that was held to be "unlawful":  Satanic verses, and Spycatcher

Whether the editors of the journal concerned consider the material to be
just or unjust, they are obeying the court order out of prudence, and not
even I would expect a commercial publisher to do otherwise.

As I see it, the appropriate purpose of law is maintaining the established
social order, while the purpose of scholarship is establishing the truth,
regardless of the established social order. If this produces
contradictions, the librarian does not have to resolve them, because the
purpose of librarianship is much simpler and less ambiguous: preserving
the record and maintaining public access.


On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, John Cox wrote:

> Surely this means that an item that was unlawful ...