MSG Defends Using Facial Recognition To Kick Lawyer Out of Rockettes Show (arstechnica.com) 296
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: When Kelly Conlon joined her daughter's Girl Scout troop for a fun outing to see the Rockettes perform their Christmas Spectacular show at Radio City Music Hall in New York, she had no idea she would end up booted from the show once she entered the building. Security stopped Conlon, NBC New York reported, because she is a New Jersey lawyer. It seems that Madison Square Garden Entertainment has begun using facial recognition technology to identify any visitor to any of its venues -- including Radio City Music Hall -- who is involved with any law firm that is actively involved in litigation against MSG Entertainment.
Conlon has never practiced law in New York nor personally been involved in litigation against MSG Entertainment. Instead, she is guilty by association, as an associate for Davis, Saperstein and Solomon, which has spent years tangled up in litigation against a restaurant that NBC reported is "now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment." According to Conlon, she became aware of this supposed conflict of interest when security guards approached her in the Radio City Music Hall lobby just as she passed through the metal detector. Over the speakers, Conlon heard a warning about a woman in a gray scarf, then security confirmed the warning was about her, telling her, "Our recognition picked you up."
Despite Conlon assuring security that "I'm not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG," she was escorted out. Ars could not immediately reach MSG for comment, but in a statement, MSG said the same thing would've happened to any attorney involved in her firm, claiming that her firm had been "notified twice" of MSG's policy. "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved," the statement provided to NBC said. "While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment."
Conlon has never practiced law in New York nor personally been involved in litigation against MSG Entertainment. Instead, she is guilty by association, as an associate for Davis, Saperstein and Solomon, which has spent years tangled up in litigation against a restaurant that NBC reported is "now under the umbrella of MSG Entertainment." According to Conlon, she became aware of this supposed conflict of interest when security guards approached her in the Radio City Music Hall lobby just as she passed through the metal detector. Over the speakers, Conlon heard a warning about a woman in a gray scarf, then security confirmed the warning was about her, telling her, "Our recognition picked you up."
Despite Conlon assuring security that "I'm not an attorney that works on any cases against MSG," she was escorted out. Ars could not immediately reach MSG for comment, but in a statement, MSG said the same thing would've happened to any attorney involved in her firm, claiming that her firm had been "notified twice" of MSG's policy. "MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved," the statement provided to NBC said. "While we understand this policy is disappointing to some, we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment."
Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:5, Interesting)
Would the scan still have worked if she had been wearing a covid mask?
I'll bet not (Score:5, Insightful)
Would the scan still have worked if she had been wearing a covid mask?
Seems unlikely, so that seems like a mandatory fashion accessory...
But how would that system have known from her face she was a problem, and not at the time she bought a ticket??? Seems like the ticket should have been refunded as soon as she bought.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they had a group ticket, but yeah... In Europe you can't just scrape faces off a website and feed them into your facial recognition software.
Re:Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, maybe a burka, Taliban-style?
Re: (Score:2)
Fingerprints from 5m sounds like BS. Maybe under ideal conditions.
Re:Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:5, Interesting)
It ultimately was. Apparently the prototype worked only at exactly the right distance one finger at a time making it far easier, faster and cheaper to just use traditional fingerprint scanners. The AirPrint camera (yes the trademark was filed in the same year as that other airprint we know about) never made it to market.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that would be in common use though.
Re: (Score:2)
Around 15 years ago I read an article describing facial recognition programs that relied on metrics such as inter-pupillary distance to identify individuals, so that even plastic surgery often could not foil the software. Around 10 years ago I read about a surveillance camera that could read fingerprints five meters away. My guess is that a covid mask would not be much of a precaution.
The thing about reading on emerging technology is that even years later you may very well find it not implemented in many places. A quick search around the internet shows that using covid masks is complete hit and miss. Some systems don't handle them at all. Some systems handle them with but with a high error rate. And some of the most recent systems handle them quite well.
There's no telling what system is in use here.
Around 10 years ago I read about a surveillance camera that could read fingerprints five meters away.
Yes you did. And you haven't read about it since. The product never worked, never came to
Re: Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
From the law firm website. The head shots there are more than sufficient for facial recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should consider editing the headshots to foil facial recognition. Adjust the position of they eyes slightly, that kind of thing.
Re: Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:5, Interesting)
Or just have paintings or realistically drawn portraits. I'm a freelancer and need to have a somewhat public presence because I have to whore around, so on my LinkedIn profile, I have a nicely drawn portrait.
Re: Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:4, Funny)
I had Picasso do mine.
Re: Masks for freedom from facial recognition (Score:3)
Or maybe stop putting your employees' faces on the Internet for no reason. This visual work culture needs to stop. I don't need to know anything about my coworkers but their email address.
Re: (Score:3)
Discrimination based on who your employer is. Might be worth making MSG an example of....
Re: (Score:3)
--This deserves to go viral, and the venue should be sued down to their socks for pulling this bullshit. The lawyer that was targeted had nothing to do with any active cases against them, and this " guilt by association " garbage is a slippery slope.
--Even if they refunded her money, her night was ruined for no good reason and she was unable to see the entertainment that she legit paid for. They should be publicly shamed over this and forced to stop the facial recognition as an invasion of privacy.
This violates MSN's liquor license (Score:5, Interesting)
"MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company from attending events at our venues until that litigation has been resolved,"
That policy directly violates New York law and now MSN will get the joy of defending its liquor license. You might say, who cares but most venues make the majority of their revenue from alcohol sales (even this one, wine by the glass has to be a big money maker for them). And according to NY law, any establishment with a liquor license has to admit anyone who isn't a disturbance. And this person is a lawyer too so they can't just brush it under the rug. Hard to imagine this blowing up in MSN's face is a worse way. They get to choose between losing liquor sales which have to be in the multiple millions a year for that venue, or getting rid of this policy. Guess which one they will pick? And I'm betting whatever silly executive decided this was a good idea will be "leaving to spend more time with their family" soon. It is rare you get to see karma in action like this. Enjoy the popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide a poner to the specific language that requires them to admit these lawyers?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/... [reuters.com] says that a state judge (note: the "New York State Supreme Court" is the trial level, not an appellate court) ruled that MSG can't kick people out after admitting them, but it can revoke the ticket until that point. The First Amendment also has a whole "freedom of association" thing that means businesses can refuse service to people for an awful lot of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure since they had her picture and knew who she was, the ticket was not bought in her name. Her showing up with it was the first chance they had to revoke it, which they did immediately. It is a pretty big logical stretch for being asked to leave by security at the metal detector to qualify as "after admiission". No judge is going to accept that being rejected by the gatekeepers at the gates counts as admission.
Look at the other possibility, which is impossible for anyone but the lawyer to know
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment also has a whole "freedom of association" thing that means businesses can refuse service to people for an awful lot of reasons
Is MSG a governmental entity? If not, then the First Amendment doesn't apply to some extent.
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment applies fully to whichever government entity issued the liquor license.
Re: (Score:2)
But they have a choice: Liquor license and admit everyone who isn't a disturbance, including people you don't wish to admit, or no liquor license and admit only those you want there.
And now we can think about what "hoisted by their own petard" means.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's a no, you can't cite the specific language?
There's quite a lot of case law about unconstitutional conditions for government licenses or permits, often in the specific context of the First Amendment: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendme... [mtsu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the numerous terms and conditions, in tiny print on the back side of the ticket, exempt the venue from having to provide a refund or any recourse whatsoever to a prohibited person who is removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This violates MSN's liquor license (Score:4, Informative)
If you watched the NBC news report [nbcnewyork.com] that was linked in the summary, you would see the attorney from the law firm where she works brought up this exact issue during the interview.
And from the Ars Technica article:
Instead of attending the festive show with her daughter, Conlon waited outside. NBC reported that others who have been blacklisted have sued MSG over the policy, viewing it as MSG’s way of punishing law firms that go after the titan of entertainment. One firm so far has fought and won in court, becoming the only exception to the policy, but MSG is still appealing that decision.
Re:This violates MSN's liquor license (Score:5, Informative)
The New York State Liquor Authority has released a statement indicating that the Dolan company’s unique lawyer ban could lead to Madison Square Garden (MSG) losing its liquor license. [rumraiders.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A quick search shows bars losing licenses for dancing, people being too rowdy, and violence, this implies that N.Y. does expect t bars to be preemptive.
The real question here is how much money is N.Y. going to lose if big venues can no longer sell liquor.
This must suck for the family or whatever. But such is life. There are pl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This violates MSN's liquor license (Score:5, Informative)
See here [nbcnewyork.com]. Part of the reason this news is they’re going after MSG’s liquor license.
Quite possibly... (Score:2, Flamebait)
You're missing the issue here: (Score:5, Interesting)
We missed the boat (Score:5, Interesting)
We've known for a long time now that this was coming - that is, people with any IT awareness.
We chose to ignore privacy worries because the systems being developed were affecting someone else, or not that often, or weren't implemented yet... and we wanted the service being offered now more than we cared about the future.
We should already have laws on the books prohibiting the retention of personal identification data without the courts getting involved first. A preservation or production order for preservation of CCTV beyond a week or so, a successful legal case against someone who has committed an offense against you before you can keep a facial ID for future use.
No creating umbrella organizations so you can say you don't share data externally and then turn around and share it with dozens of different entities. No changing privacy policies and applying them retroactively to data already collected.
But now it's a mature technology being implemented by companies with deep pockets and an interest in keeping it. Those kinds of laws are unlikely to be drafted or passed any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
First, that they have a facial recognition system that scans everyone entering their venue
These are everywhere now. Getting on planes, returning to the country. It's annoying, but they're here.
Actually it's pretty cool technology, the only problem is the potential for abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Bakery. Gay wedding cake. Conservatives fought hard on that one. Lawyers aren't a protected class so this private establishment can refuse service to anyone they please, no matter what mechanism they use. Don't like it? Don't patronize their establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Entirely different. MSG has already lost this case against another company.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, that it has a database of faces that apparently includes not just the attorneys opposing them but everyone else in an arbitrary group that they defined
Other attorneys at the same law firm that is suing them is nowhere even close to being and arbitrary group. How, exactly, is MSG to tell who is actually working on the case and who isn't? Banning all lawyers from the firm is the first thing any company should do when being sued.
Three, and most troubling, is that their database is privately held and subject to no restrictions or oversight, and when they have 10,000 people buy tickets for their venue they probably get scans of everyone who attends. You get tagged as a troublemaker and you have basically no way to know you were tagged or get it corrected if it's not true.
So it is exactly like every bar and restaurant that has a list of people no longer allowed there, just larger because they handle more people. "Let lawyers who are suing you come in and be able to question your employees under false
social credit ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... is coming, just under a corp control, well, some say that all is anyway.
Asking for it (Score:5, Insightful)
we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment.
Picking a personal fight with a bunch of corporate lawyers seems like an effective way to attract more lawsuits rather than less.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The winner in this fight will be who has the deepest pockets. My money is on the venue.
Re: (Score:2)
MSG already lost once. They're going to lose every time. It's already over before it started if this goes to court.
And anyway MSG is a public accommodation area. On that alone they'd get crushed in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MSG instituted a straightforward policy that precludes attorneys pursuing active litigation against the Company
She stated she is not involved in litigation against MSG. I'm not picking a side here, but clearly it isn't as straight forward as you claim. Now, it sounds like MSG takes their policy to mean any and all that work for the firm, and not just the ones actively working on cases against them. That is fine, but is that how the policy is actually worded or how it was provided to the law firm? They still have the right to set those rules, but if that hadn't been clear it sh
Re: (Score:3)
And how, exactly, is MSG supposed to know if she's involved in the litigation or not? How many lawyers for the firm who aren't listed on the suit are doing research or other tasks for the case? How are they to tell if she's there for the show or to question employees?
They can't. Banning the whole firm is the only sensible course of action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's terrible (Score:2)
Slippery slope and all that... I'm against facial recognition in general, because I fail to see any use case that doesn't involve surveillance.
But...
Kick Lawyer Out
Silver lining.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I *HAVE* been falsely accused of a crime (Dealing ecstasy at a nightclub... back in 2001 when the hysteria about MDMA was at its peak.) before. All my lawyer did was inform me that any attempt to sue, or otherwise have punished in any way, the cops who did so and arrested me would be futile.
Casinos use this stuff all the time... (Score:2, Interesting)
This sort of stuff isn't new. Las Vegas and other casinos use this all the time and they can get someone intercepted and trespassed before they entered ten feet inside the establishment.
Private is private property. What is the difference between this and having photos at the gate where a bouncer identifies people at the door and shows them out?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to live in your fantasy world where a lawyer working for a law firm who is suing you is not a risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Denial of service - just get started (Score:2)
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
In a democracy, the only way we're going to return to sanity is for large numbers of voters to demand common sense. That means that people need to reject Trump election-stealing on the right, and Bernie Sanders socialism on the left. The voters in Texas need to stop passing laws that give 2 cells more rights than a fully grown woman, and the liberal arts departments need to accept that the entire country isn't hard liberal left.
It means that a LOT of voters need to stop voting single-ticket and start picking their candidates based on actual competency. I don't believe this is actually going to happen. But the fix for this is obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
and Bernie Sanders socialism on the left.
Bernie Sanders may be wrong about "socialism", but he has a right to present his opinion.
I've never heard him say anything against free speech, which one mark on the positive side in my book.
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
True, Bernie merely has "socialist" as a label and that turns him into a bogey man, however his policies are not really extreme compared to some others on the left in Congress. If not for that label he wouldn't have the same rage directed against him. Bernie is quite willing to debate those he disagrees with rather than cancelling, banning, or sending crazies after them.
There are many people I disagree with now and who I disagreed with in the past that I'd much rather have in the public spotlight intelligently arguing their case than the current crop of intolerants on the left and right.
Re: Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to get that a prairie dog isn't a dog, but throw Democratic Socialist at them and they get triggered while they are driving on the Interstate going to cash their unemployment check on the way to the state park.
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh no Bernie Sanders and socialism. That son of a bitch asking for higher wages, workers rights, and better healthcare... Wait why are people upset over that?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason why a LOT of hispanics vote republican. They know how socialist governments actually play out, because people in the families fled them just a generation or two ago, and they want NOTHING to do with that crap. Cuba, North Korea, China (sort of), V
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no hypotheticals involved here. We have absolutely incontrovertible facts at our disposal: There are cities all across the nation where the minimum wage is $15 right now and has been for a while. No, a burger does not cost $20 there.
Meanwhile, people in economically depressed conservative rural communities just keep on wondering how it is things keep getting worse and worse, and homelessness and crime keep going up, as the real value of the minimum wage continues to decline further and further and further below the minimum for even a lone person with no dependents to support themselves, to say nothing of a family.
Sixty percent of the entire country now lives paycheck to paycheck, and there are actual people claiming with straight faces that wages don't need to rise.
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Informative)
This is misinformation.
I live in New York: here's a menu from a sit-down bar & restaurant in my neighborhood. The priciest burger is $12.
https://zmenu.com/skinflints-brooklyn-online-menu/ [zmenu.com]
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:4, Insightful)
"Everyone needs to calm down and take my position" is the problem, and you're contributing. There's lots of insanity out there. Don't lump abortion (which is an issue reasonable people can disagree on and still live together peacefully) with election stealing (which isn't).
People need to see their system of government as more important than the people running it. That means accepting that whoever won, won (neither "not my president" nor "the election was stolen"). But the fish rots from the head, and gradual improvement is much harder than gradual decline. How do we fix it? I don't have a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
demand common sense. That means that people need to reject Trump election-stealing on the right, and Bernie Sanders socialism on the left.
Those things are not the same. In fact I'm willing to bet a good 90% of my fellow countrymen would say common sense is adopting Bernie Sanders socialism wholesale.
But I know I know, "socialism" is a dirty word in America because of something something reasons.
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump election-stealing on the right, and Bernie Sanders socialism on the left
This is the most retarded take I've ever seen, comparing these two as equal and on opposite sides.
Trump wanted to cancel democracy and install himself as a dictator, promoting hatred, bigotry, corruption, and general evil.
Sanders wanted people to have free access to medicine and healthcare, education, and for corporations to be held accountable for their actions.
If that is even remotely the same level of extremism to you then your fucking brain is broken, and your ability to think rationally doesn't exist.
voters need to stop voting single-ticket and start picking their candidates based on actual competency
You mean like voting Independent... like for Bernie Sanders?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if you realise this but generally speaking you can't vote dictators out of office, and they usually don't allow massive nationwide protests against them or constant media coverage opposing them.
Here's a very simple test about whether Sanders or Trump was more anti-democratic: Go to any GOP campaign or political event and tell people you're a liberal but want to hear their side and discuss things with them. Then go to any antifa or other leftist event wearing a MAGA hat and a star of david shirt
Re: (Score:3)
It means that a LOT of voters need to stop voting single-ticket and start picking their candidates based on actual competency.
I'm registered as "no party affiliation" and voted for Democrats, Republicans, and independents in the last election. There are at least a few of us out here that take the time to look into candidates, and vote accordingly. The biggest issue is that no single candidate is perfect, and voting often becomes a game of "which one is the least awful". The problem is that everyone's cr
Re: Hurray for cancel culture (Score:3)
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:4, Interesting)
Allowing a military recruiter (or any recruiter for that matter) into a venue/arena where they are supposedly there for the enjoyment of the show/program and expect ALL to be focused on that and NOT essentially spies is like saying... "Russia said these 5 guys who are KNOWN spies are NOT spies tonight.. so you have nothing to worry about!!" And if you believe they won't, I have a few bridges to sell you.
The point of barring recruiters from those events/spaces is so they can follow an established protocol... You want to recruit?.. fine, do it ABOVE BOARD when everyone knows what your angle is.. not under the table where people don't know (or don't assume) they are being lead down the dark path.
In the case of MSG, its essentially the same thing.. Lawyers are like police.. they don't HAVE to tell you the truth if they are doing investigations/data collection.. And so as they have no verifiable way to confirming her ACTUAL intentions (she can claim she's there for the show, but corporate spying has a LONG and time honored tradition where a pretty face and a low level job title have taken down empires) so they err on the side of caution and say, if you are associated with them, even tangentially you can't come in..
But lets move on from that.... Are we not seriously going to discuss (on a tech website) the danger MSG poses to EVERYONE with their undisclosed facial recognition/spy program of their own and the weaknesses its own security (which most do, as these venues NEVER consider security) poses to everyone, including backdoor spying by the police and other agencies that take advantage of that weakness (or even possibly directly paid for/licensed for tracking/monitoring).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In what way is it sneaky and underhanded for military recruiters to show up at a recruiting event and sit at their recruiting table in their uniforms under a giant ass sign that says "Uncle Sam wants YOU?"
Anyone who can't figure out what the military recruiters are doing at a recruiting event is too stupid for the military.
Your statement is utterly bizarre. Makes no sense at all. It isn't merely wrong but incoherent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, at least I understand better now why all the amateur legal opinions here are for shit.
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She is free to associate. They are free to ban her for that association.
Just because you are free to do something doesn't mean there will not be consequences. It just means there will not be consequences from the government. MSG is not a government, and they are under no obligation to allow someone in who is associated with a law firm that is actively trying to harm them.
The law firm should have told their employees that the consequence of working there was that you could not go to any events at MSG, probab
Re: (Score:2)
It was not a comment on the lawyer and/or MSG mentioned in the post.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not cancel culture. It was a business decision to keep lawyers from firms that are suing them out. Purely about preventing them from gathering any evidence or doing any research in person.
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
It absolutely is cancel culture. It's just being less dishonest. Instead of making up fraudulent excuses about "isms" they're just openly admitting they're leveraging their corporate power to enact extra-judicial punishments against those who they dislike.
You've spent the last 6 years frothing at the mouth about fascism and now when you've got a blatant existential threat to the very concept of rights, democracy, and access to the courts right in front of your face you're defending it. Which I guess shouldn't be surprising, you're a woke leftist and the woke left is the most anti-democracy totalitarian ideology alive in the US today.
Access to the courts is literally at the very foundation of the concept of a civil society in which you have laws and justice rather than vigilantism and might makes right. Allowing corporations to enforce apartheid against lawyers involved in litigation is an existential threat to the very concept of having laws and courts in the first place
This has nothing to do with "gathering evidence" or "research", it's about making a public show of punishing lawyers for daring to provide people access to the courts and enabling them to pursue their rights.
What happens when GM decides no lawyers litigating them will be allowed to drive their cars?
What happens when Unilever decides to block purchases of their products at point of sale?
What happens when companies start forming anti-litigation alliances and you can't fill up your gas or buy groceries anywhere in the surrounding 3 cities?
How do you think this is going to end when it's your turn to try and find a way to access the courts and seek justice for someone violating your rights? What are you going to do when you can't find a single lawyer willing to even have a consultation because they don't want their entire families getting banned from every single facet of public life?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think this behavior is at all healthy, but your opinion may differ if you think you yourself couldn't possibly be on the receiving end of it. I understand...it's somewhat unthinkable in the context of a free society
I personally beg to differ. It's exactly the "free society absolutism" that makes things like this normal. Your business, your rules, you decide who is welcome and who is to be booted. One might dislike lawyers, another - fat people, yet another - Jews or Latino people or Black people or whonot. Hey, it's your property, so show the unwelcome guests the door.
In societies which are not that free, like the EU(SSR), such behavior is more difficult to be seen, due to the strong anti-discrimination laws.
Cancel Culture (Score:2)
Considering the right wing invented that word I find it surprising that they themselves don't even know what it means. Hint: Cancel Culture has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
I don't think this behavior is at all healthy
I think the right to free speech and thus freedom of association is very healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
do you think we're really that balkanized and disconnected from each other that a social pathology that starts and festers in one segment of society won't metastasize to the rest of the culture?
It's already there. The right has had a long history of ostracizing people. Maybe it wasn't called cancel culture, but it's essentially the same thing.
Have a gay teenager? Throw that kid out onto the streets and let that kid become homeless. Not religious? Or the wrong religion? You'll be shamed and shunned by your family and your local community. Selling the wrong magazine? Or showing the wrong movie? Boycotted. Taking the knee during a game? Boycotted and the President uses the power of his office to get
Re: (Score:3)
A quality use of AC. Normally one might need to be anonymous to post something important that some government doesn't want the people to know.
But, using it like this to post empty childish garbage? You are so brave! Your mom is so proud of your ability to connect with others and convince them of your righteous cause with such pithy brilliance and your delivery of cold hard facts. Your logic is irrefutable!
Your mom and I are so proud of you!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Silly mod. Totally on topic and a direct response to what was said.
Give this one a bad mod, too. Karma to burn. You don't reply because you're dumb and a coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Like a bakery and a gay wedding cake. They fought for that right.
Re: (Score:2)
You cant force a business to serve gay couples. Of course you also have the right to publicize this stance and ask other people who agree with you to not patronize that business. Using the law to force them is not capitalism or democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
What classes of people do you believe one should be able to exclude, and which should they not be able to exclude?
Re: (Score:3)
Apart from that, I find it an absolutely disgusting behaviour.
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Access to the courts is literally at the very foundation of the concept of a civil society in which you have laws and justice rather than vigilantism and might makes right. Allowing corporations to enforce apartheid against lawyers involved in litigation is an existential threat to the very concept of having laws and courts in the first place.
What happens when GM decides no lawyers litigating them will be allowed to drive their cars?
What happens when Unilever decides to block purchases of their products at point of sale?
What happens when companies start forming anti-litigation alliances and you can't fill up your gas or buy groceries anywhere in the surrounding 3 cities?
They're not facing discrimination for being a lawyer, they're being attacked for daring to do their job and provide legal representation to someone. For daring to provide access to the courts in a way the attacking corporation dislikes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we need one that bans, outlaws and deports Trump-fellating Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
agreed, if the custom message is done for free then it should be at the whim of the decorator to refuse to do it.
and by that logic if you charge extra then it's a service and you can't exclude the additional service for some customers based on a protected class.
we run our businesses by the standards set forth by the government. ideally a government that is democratic and which we are all well represented. so that the community's standards for how they feel businesses should conduct commerce are the basis of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody is forcing people to supply a sevice. They are just insisting that if you do supply a service it should be supplied to everyone who requests it, rather than you being allowed to pick and choose who you provide it to..
That's just stupid. I mean really fucking dumb.
"Good morning, Clive. I would like you to decorate a cake for me."
"Certainly. What do you want on it?"
"I want it to read 'Clive fucks dogs for money,' please."
"I'm not putting that on a cake. Piss off."
"Officer - arrest this man."
Why would you even post such a stupid idea? To virtue signal? To whom? Who here even knows you?
What you mean is that you want people to provide a service as long as the specifics don't offend YOU. Well, I don't give a fuck about you or
Re: (Score:3)
There are so many things wrong with your example that it's hard to know where to start. In fact, I think I'll just point out that you're conflating defamation with questions of public accommodation and leave it at that. Bottom line, yours is a bad counterargument.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hurray for cancel culture (Score:5, Interesting)
Forcing them to provide service to people they dont want to is neither democracy nor capitalism.
As it would apply to a natural person, I'd agree with this. So, there's a simple fix - if you're doing business as a sole proprietor or simple partnership, you can discriminate all you want against whoever you want, but you have to accept any potential liability for doing so. If you're doing it as a corporation or LLC, that business entity is a creation of the government, so if you want the government to grant you immunity against personal liability for your business's actions while still being able to personally collect all the profits, then you play by the government's rules. If fear of liability is more important to you than your principles, oh well.
Supreme Court interpretations like those of Santa Clara and Citizens United have made a complete mess of things