Yawn. Here we go again with the chest beating and calling for rights that do not exist.
>>the key issues is not really whether music guy has commited [sic] any violations the big issue is he being singled out and the only one that has paid for his actions<<
...
>>she advise me that he could have something similar to a work discrimination case<<
That last comment is really a hoot. Anyway, your big issue is a non-issue, to wit:
(Excerpt from the Terms of Use)
You agree that we may, in our sole discretion, terminate or suspend your access to all or part of the Service for any reason, including, without limitation, breach of the Terms of Use or any subsequent modifications, or attempted assignment of your account by you.
To restate, YOU agree that SI has the right, but not the obligation, to act or not act as they see fit, period. There are no limits on their rights (i.e., "without limitation"), and there is no obligation on their part to do anything whatsoever, and there is certainly nothing that says they have to act in what you or anyone else arbitrarily deems to be an equitable manner. In fact, they can act arbitrarily and in an inequitable manner (by no means implying that they do or have) if they choose to do so. You have agreed to that.
Ask lance to to inquire of his wife which part of that she doesn't understand. I have to wonder at her qualifications to work for a state's attorney office when she can't read and comprehend plain English. |
