The original article, and most of the posts here, can be used to illustrate another important issue: if one makes snap judgments based on partial information, it is easy to be misled. Following the links all the way to http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/Decision%202008.12.03.pdf (the judge's decision) reveals that the plaintiff failed to achieve a satisfactory rating during student teaching, which contributed to her not getting a teaching certificate. Snyder and Mayer-Schoenberger failed to include that inconvenient fact.

Perhaps before jumping into a stranger's fight (or, in this case, flaming about narrow-minded opposition to free speech), we should take the time to learn more of the facts.

...between humor and malicious behavior. We don't excuse a schoolyard bully if he claims, "I was just having fun." Neither should we ignore malicious false statements merely because someone claims, "I was just doing a parody."

Accusations against teachers and principles of sexual misconduct against their students are typically taken very seriously (with good reason). So how is a student who makes such statements, apparently in retaliation for being disciplined at school, that different from a student who retaliates by pulling a fire alarm?

...abounds, under the name of Planned Obsolescence! How could any patent examiner with at least a high-school education fail to know that?

Planned obsolescence was first developed in the 1920s and 1930s ...

PS: Before marking something "redundant", look at the timestamps to see which entry came first!

Bing?