The legal Deparment runs most companies . They are the only way to get something bespoke done (like unlocking an account ). And companies are terrified of discovery.
Any lawyer can file a complaint in small claims . OP has paid for a service and has a contract
They booted him for TOs violation, that was their action. A judge can decide whether that action was a breach of the contract, or if the contract itself is lawful.
We live in a common law country. It means that the judgement defines the law, not contracts (and not even statute, strictly)
Normal propane weed burners work pretty well against weeds in areas where it's reasonable to use something like that. But they aren't good if there's anything nearby you want to protect.
I am honestly curious how many Congresspeople with law degrees could pass the Bar.
But also have you see some of the laws written by them? I am not saying we need to dumb it down, but the fact that an average person who is governed by these laws cannot comprehend these laws is probably not the most desirable quality in a legal system.
Either you don't understand what an analogy is, your misunderstand this one in particular.
My point was that both do something which benefits me that directly disadvantages other people. When people talk about their massive truck feeling safer, somehow this dynamic is ignored. But if someone applied the same reasoning about standing up in a movie theater, the selfishness is apparent to everyone.
Banning these people is a shortcut for making it real easy for the intended audience of the website to block them. This is a fundamental part of the first amendment and enables the platform to shape its commercial offering to fit its business model.
You seem to have confused online social medial platforms with common carriers which is an extremely popular error lately.
No one is confused about the correct application of law, this is clearly an argument about principles as they apply to de-facto corporate controlled commons. Google is not the state, but essentially controls one of the few means of self publishing. It's not unlike company towns, and civil liberties. Just because it's not the state doesn't make it not an infringement.
I’d be interested in a citation for the proposition “social media is like a company town,” but I’m afraid if I promised to wait for one I might be here a while. The best I can do is direct you back to Marsh v. Alabama.
What makes it not an infringement is not that Facebook is not the state; it’s that Facebook does not encompass the traditional function of the municipality. The state action doctrine does not apply.
Arresting people who are wanted on outstanding warrants is “real work.” Fund the police if there is too much work for the police to do. Letting criminals drive around with impunity is not an acceptable approach.
reply