> restricting access to such information by putting it behind
> paywalls is harmful to society in a similar ways as restricting
> fire protection to those households that are willing to pay for it.
I've never lived anywhere in the US that has fire protection paid for by "the willing" -- property taxes pay for fire protection in most places[*]. Are you saying that taxes should pay for your online access to the NY Times? That seems fine to me in principle, but I think we're a long way from that.
And it would hardly make it "free" ...
> That is, well informed public is essential for effective functioning
> of democratic governance, so restriction on information are harmful
> to that governance.
So wait, we just need to read the NY Times in order to be well informed and thus that would fix our ineffective non-functioning democratic governance? Sign me up!
> I know why the paywalls are in place. However, that does not mean
> uncritical acceptance of the logic behind them (pardon the unintended
> pun) - which is the neoliberal logic of selective privatization.
Ah, it's neoliberal that a newspaper should charge for access to their information.
Now I get it!
/jordan
[*] There are a few holdouts, with predictable results: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Grants+Pass+Rural+Fire+Department