> Why is it a precedent? Precedents aren't limited to the legal system. Their actions changed the expectation (ie established a new precedent) for their behavi

> Why is it a precedent? Precedents aren't limited to the legal system. Their actions changed the expectation (ie established a new precedent) for their behavior going forward. > So the only reason for continuing to work for/with violent anti-semites was that they wanted to. Or entertaining broader ideals surrounding freedom of expression? Or perhaps seeing the inherent dangers of living in a society dominated by public outrage? Or something else entirely? > Until, at some point, they changed their mind. Due, by their own admission, to financial concerns. Concerns which wouldn't exist if they and all their competitors were legally required not to discriminate based on otherwise legal content. > HN has a strange infatuation with this idea of avoiding responsibility by pretending to be powerless. I don't see that anywhere in this comment section? Rather, I see people objecting to actions which are legal but which they feel should not be.