To: Wayne Rumball (4698 )
From: David Lawrence
Saturday, Mar 13 1999 6:26PM ET
Reply # of 4700
Wayne, you did not offend me, and my regrets for coming across that way. It's just that
we have seen this frivilous complaint appear over and over again.
According to that logic, a membership site is permitted to do anything it wants,
simply because they announce in advance that they might, and make you "agree"
to it in order to join.
That is correct, practical, and reasonable. It is their enterprise, and they are allowed to
specify their terms of membership and member conduct. If someone does not agree
with or desire to be subject to those terms, they simply need not become a member or
participate in the forum.
A civil contract containing provisions which are in violation of federal or state
laws is invalid and unenforceable.
True enough. But I don't see where that applies here. What law does the SI Terms of
Use violate? Please don't tell me the First Amendment which, in part, prohibits the
Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech. Although SI is a public
company, it is not owned by the public at large, and is not a division of government. It is
not duty bound to observe or enforce first amendment rights to free speech. No such
right exists here unless the administrators of SI say it does. That is not a violation of law,
because the law does not specify that a private enterprise shall not abridge the right to
free speech.
Then we have those that who want "fair play". John uses a particular explicative in a
posting and is sanctioned in some manner. Jane uses the exact same explicative and no
action is taken. Discrimination! is the charge. Sorry folks, that ain't the kind of
discrimination that violates federal or state law because it does not discriminate on the
basis of a protected attribute.
Oh, and based on a PM from lance, he states that his spouse not only works in a state's
attorney office, but she is indeed a state's attorney. Nothing personal, but my opinion
stands.
|
