This is just to say that I was disappointed I couldn't access the article linked in this FPP, and the link was essentially the entire FPP. [more inside]
Earlier this year there was a discussion of links to the NYT in which the fact that links from Metafilter were exempted from the paywall was given as a reason not to treat these links specially. Such links are no longer exempted. Can we please start treating these as we do links to any other subscription-only source?
Frequent (some say too frequent) MetaFilter source The New York Times is going to initiate a PayWall in the next month (according to a freely available article from the Wall Street Journal - extra points for irony). So how will this change from the Grey Lady effect the Blue? [more inside]
The crux of this FPP is a Supreme Court decision (concerning a male-on-male attempted homicide) that allegedly curtails the testimony of SANE nurses in rape cases. The Court's decision, as linked, uses the word "rape" twice, both times in the phrase "tried to rape [her]". However, that document does not use the words "SANE", "nurse", "medical" nor "doctor" at all. The only link that appears to connect SANE nurses to the Court's decision is behind a paywall and we only have the OP's interpretation of that document. Does this make for a good FPP?
Tiny pony: would it be possible to convert links to New York Times pages to the 'weblog-friendly' equivalent on posting? [more inside]