Any contractual provision that claims to punish legally protected speech with fines or other, similar punishments — a provision that can only be upheld by a court of law, which is part of the government — is, at the absolute best, legally questionable.
HOAs can only enforce any kind of fine for a rule violation through government intervention. Any fine for speech the HOA doesn’t like is thus a government-backed attempt to silence speech.
Not true at all. Courts can and do enforce contract provisions between private parties that would amount to a 1st Amendment (or 2nd Amendment, etc.) violation if done by the government. The mere enforcement of the private agreement by the government does not bootstrap that private agreement into government action.
They're not government entities, but they can still violate someone's First Amendment rights. Telling people "you can't say this" and threatening them with lawsuits or financial penalties as a way to back up that order is censorship.
If that was the case, then all those suits against Twitter for banning people and deleting their Tweets would have been successful.
I don't think this has much to do with constitutional law. The HOA is a private organization and isn't subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment.
This seems more like a breach of contract law. The HOA is empowered to enforce the restrictive covenants in the deeds of the property owners. I'm fairly certain there is no covenant prohibiting residents from grousing about the HOA on Facebook. For the board to create such a rule out of thin air is likely well beyond the scope of its contractual power.
Even if there's some catch-all clause that says something like "...and the Board shall have the power to do anything else necessary to maintain the quality of the community", there's obviously a limit to what they can actually do. They can't order you to quit your job and work for them for free; they can't order the women not to wear pants or work outside the home; they can't prohibit you from watching movies they don't approve of, etc. And telling people what they can and can't say on the internet (or in the newspaper or anywhere else) would certainly fall under 'you've gone way beyond the reasonableness of your contractual authority'.
Sounds like the same bleating we heard from the 'social justice' crowd in 2012 when the founder of Chick-fil-A had the gall to disagree with 'progressives' on the issue of gay marriage. Note that there has never been any evidence that the company discriminates against gays in either employment or customer service. This was just the company founder's personal religious viewpoint-- and he didn't even run the company anymore.
Protests were ginned up, boycotts announced, the warriors girded themselves for battle, and... nothing. Worse than nothing from the 'progressive' point of view. Rather than boycotting Chick-fil-A, the rest of the country-- the normals-- made a point of patronizing them and the company had record profits for that week and several weeks after. The drive-thru line for my local Chik-fil-a (in Torrance, deep-blue California, no less) stretched out the parking lot and down the street for a quarter mile.
It couldn't have been a more resounding defeat and rebuke of the 'social justice' mob.
Why? I mean, I get that their pop-up burger stands are just a bootstrap way to keep the trademark going, but why would you (or anyone else) care to the point of finding it 'very frustrating'?
Are you trying to sell burgers in Thailand or New Zealand or Shanghai using the name In 'N Out and being prevented from doing so by the company's trademarks? If not, I can't imagine what about this could possibly be frustrating to you.
Unless you're trying to use the name In 'N Out to sell burgers in other countries-- and let's face it, there's no reason why anyone would do that other than to try and capitalize on the American company's success and name recognition, thereby making the motive somewhat sleazy and suspect regardless of the legalities-- then it shouldn't frustrate you at all.
The pay TV provider balks, and blacks out the aforementioned content. Consumers spend a few months paying for content they can't access
When this happens to me, I unapologetically hit the torrent sites for the shows I'm missing. As you say, I've already paid for the content, so I'm not pirating it. I'm just getting what I paid for.
but you do understand that all of those allegations of fact need to have some proof that they are indeed fact?
Sure. The plaintiff has the burden of proof in every lawsuit. That doesn't change the fact that the allegations are not "mostly opinion" as Cushing claimed.
Were any of those proofs included with the documents filed with the suit?
One doesn't usually present evidence in a complaint, let alone a discovery request. That's done during trial.
...a lot of commenters making opinionated statements isn't the best foundation for a libel lawsuit.
a. An August 5, 2019 thread disparaging the Plaintiff in a discussion regarding an ongoing HPD investigation;
Opnion. Not actionable.
b. An August 28,2019 thread accusing the Plaintiff of sleeping during his shift and appearing to accuse the same of impropriety regarding the use of his official vehicle;
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
c. An August 29, 2019 comment accusing the Plaintiff of inappropriately leaking police information;
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
d. An October 2, 2019 thread attacking the Plaintiffs ability to lead other officers, accusing the Plaintiff of making racist comments towards another officer, and accusing the Plaintiff of ignoring the racist comments made by subordinate officers;
Mixture of fact and opinion. If untrue, some of it can indeed be defamatory
e. An October 2, 2019 comment making unsubstantiated comments regarding the Plaintiff s job performance while working with the NYPD, and alleging that "[the Plaintiff] was racist so they kept him out of queens [sic] and Bronx;"
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
f. An October 18, 2019 comment stating, "All HPD Officers have been ordered not to read your blog by members of the Command Staff, Chief Thody included;"
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
g. An October 21, 2019 comment alleging that the Plaintiff has threatened to cut the Defendant's throat, and characterizing the Plaintiff as "a complete disgrace to the badge;"
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
h. An October 21, 2019 comment where an anonymous user of the Blog posted using the name "Lt. Vincent Benvenuto" in which the anonymous user impersonated the Plaintiff and stated that his promotion to Lieutenant was not based on merit.
Opinion. Not actionable.
So contrary to Cushing's characterization, most of what is alleged were statements of fact, not opinion. (And no, that doesn't mean I support a court ordering a third part blogger to expose the identities of commenters. I'm just pointing out Cushing's inaccurate soft-pedaling of the allegations.)
Hell, in Georgia, they can now require you to register as a sex offender for anything. Burglary, extortion, reckless driving, doesn't matter. The court can order to you register as a sex offender.
No, I'm in favor of the government holding people to account for every crime they commit and not giving people a free pass on three serious crimes merely because the court overturns the law on a fourth.
Data, the pictures. Data is a thing of value. Plenty of people have been rolled up for data theft over the years.
Computer intrusion -- it depends on the applicable statutes. I'm only familiar with laws that criminalize access of specific types of government-regulated data, like state secrets or HIPAA, but I find it reasonable to believe that there could be civil laws about using someone else's credentials to access data that you were otherwise not authorized to access.
The case deals with Michael Casillas, who used the victim's passwords to access her accounts to obtain her sexual photos and videos. Casillas threatened to release them.
You hate to see jerks win.
Not sure why this jerk has to win. Seems like they could get him on computer intrusion, theft, and extortion. Probably could put him away for longer on all those charges combined than they would have under the revenge porn law.
Surely there must be some sort of human rights issue that can be invoked here?
As long as they voluntary agree to it as a condition of enrolling in the university, I don't see how it violates any established right in the U.S., regardless of how creepy it is.
In addition to emergency contact obligations like their kid getting sick or family in declining health and near the edge of death.
That's why you provide a company landline number to your emergency contacts. If there's a problem, they can still get in touch with you, just not on your personal cell phone.
(I wonder how people who work in the intelligence community--CIA, NSA, DIA, etc-- and other sensitive positions where security and anti-electronic espionage rules prohibit them from bringing a transmitting device into their workspace manage to keep in touch with their families and children...)
Retention really is a big, ongoing problem for students of color, true.
Why is it a problem for students of any color?
They've been admitted. They're adults. They can decide to put in the effort and finish the degree requirements or leave. Why does the university care one way or the other?
If it's a money thing-- "We care because the longer you stay the more money we get"-- then why would they only care about students "of color"? Money spends the same no matter who it comes from.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re:
What do you think a non-disclosure agreement is?
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re:
Not true at all. Courts can and do enforce contract provisions between private parties that would amount to a 1st Amendment (or 2nd Amendment, etc.) violation if done by the government. The mere enforcement of the private agreement by the government does not bootstrap that private agreement into government action.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Re: A HOA isn't bound by the 1st Ammendment
If that was the case, then all those suits against Twitter for banning people and deleting their Tweets would have been successful.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Constitution
I don't think this has much to do with constitutional law. The HOA is a private organization and isn't subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment.
This seems more like a breach of contract law. The HOA is empowered to enforce the restrictive covenants in the deeds of the property owners. I'm fairly certain there is no covenant prohibiting residents from grousing about the HOA on Facebook. For the board to create such a rule out of thin air is likely well beyond the scope of its contractual power.
Even if there's some catch-all clause that says something like "...and the Board shall have the power to do anything else necessary to maintain the quality of the community", there's obviously a limit to what they can actually do. They can't order you to quit your job and work for them for free; they can't order the women not to wear pants or work outside the home; they can't prohibit you from watching movies they don't approve of, etc. And telling people what they can and can't say on the internet (or in the newspaper or anywhere else) would certainly fall under 'you've gone way beyond the reasonableness of your contractual authority'.
On the post: In 'N Out Burger Continues Its Bullshit Pop-Up Technique To Keep Trademarks It Isn't Actually Using
Re: Re: Re: Flying Fast Food
Sounds like the same bleating we heard from the 'social justice' crowd in 2012 when the founder of Chick-fil-A had the gall to disagree with 'progressives' on the issue of gay marriage. Note that there has never been any evidence that the company discriminates against gays in either employment or customer service. This was just the company founder's personal religious viewpoint-- and he didn't even run the company anymore.
Protests were ginned up, boycotts announced, the warriors girded themselves for battle, and... nothing. Worse than nothing from the 'progressive' point of view. Rather than boycotting Chick-fil-A, the rest of the country-- the normals-- made a point of patronizing them and the company had record profits for that week and several weeks after. The drive-thru line for my local Chik-fil-a (in Torrance, deep-blue California, no less) stretched out the parking lot and down the street for a quarter mile.
It couldn't have been a more resounding defeat and rebuke of the 'social justice' mob.
On the post: In 'N Out Burger Continues Its Bullshit Pop-Up Technique To Keep Trademarks It Isn't Actually Using
Frustration
Why? I mean, I get that their pop-up burger stands are just a bootstrap way to keep the trademark going, but why would you (or anyone else) care to the point of finding it 'very frustrating'?
Are you trying to sell burgers in Thailand or New Zealand or Shanghai using the name In 'N Out and being prevented from doing so by the company's trademarks? If not, I can't imagine what about this could possibly be frustrating to you.
Unless you're trying to use the name In 'N Out to sell burgers in other countries-- and let's face it, there's no reason why anyone would do that other than to try and capitalize on the American company's success and name recognition, thereby making the motive somewhat sleazy and suspect regardless of the legalities-- then it shouldn't frustrate you at all.
On the post: AT&T TV Service Goes Dark On Roku As The Streaming Wars Get Stupid
Black Outs
When this happens to me, I unapologetically hit the torrent sites for the shows I'm missing. As you say, I've already paid for the content, so I'm not pirating it. I'm just getting what I paid for.
On the post: The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
Lawyer's Name
FYI - You consistently spelled Sandmann's lawyer's name wrong throughout the article. It's McMurtry, not McMurty.
On the post: Connecticut Cop Sues Local Blogger To Get Him To Turn Over Personal Info On Commenters Who Said Thing The Cop Didn't Like
Re: Re:
Sure. The plaintiff has the burden of proof in every lawsuit. That doesn't change the fact that the allegations are not "mostly opinion" as Cushing claimed.
One doesn't usually present evidence in a complaint, let alone a discovery request. That's done during trial.
On the post: Connecticut Cop Sues Local Blogger To Get Him To Turn Over Personal Info On Commenters Who Said Thing The Cop Didn't Like
Opnion. Not actionable.
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
Mixture of fact and opinion. If untrue, some of it can indeed be defamatory
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
Allegation of fact, not opinion. If untrue, it indeed can be defamatory.
Opinion. Not actionable.
So contrary to Cushing's characterization, most of what is alleged were statements of fact, not opinion. (And no, that doesn't mean I support a court ordering a third part blogger to expose the identities of commenters. I'm just pointing out Cushing's inaccurate soft-pedaling of the allegations.)
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re:
Hell, in Georgia, they can now require you to register as a sex offender for anything. Burglary, extortion, reckless driving, doesn't matter. The court can order to you register as a sex offender.
https://www.wired.com/2010/03/sex-offender-databases/
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
No, I'm in favor of the government holding people to account for every crime they commit and not giving people a free pass on three serious crimes merely because the court overturns the law on a fourth.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re:
You must have missed this bit:
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re:
Lawyers make all sorts of ridiculous arguments all the time. It's what they're paid to do.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Data, the pictures. Data is a thing of value. Plenty of people have been rolled up for data theft over the years.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1029
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
Double jeopardy would not apply because he wouldn't be tried for the same crime twice.
The first time he was charged with revenge porn.
This time he'd be charged with computer intrusion.
Two different crimes. No double jeopardy.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Put Him in Prison Anyway
Not sure why this jerk has to win. Seems like they could get him on computer intrusion, theft, and extortion. Probably could put him away for longer on all those charges combined than they would have under the revenge porn law.
On the post: Tracking College Students Everywhere They Go On Campus Is The New Normal
Re: Incredible
As long as they voluntary agree to it as a condition of enrolling in the university, I don't see how it violates any established right in the U.S., regardless of how creepy it is.
On the post: Tracking College Students Everywhere They Go On Campus Is The New Normal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why you provide a company landline number to your emergency contacts. If there's a problem, they can still get in touch with you, just not on your personal cell phone.
(I wonder how people who work in the intelligence community--CIA, NSA, DIA, etc-- and other sensitive positions where security and anti-electronic espionage rules prohibit them from bringing a transmitting device into their workspace manage to keep in touch with their families and children...)
On the post: Tracking College Students Everywhere They Go On Campus Is The New Normal
Re:
Why is it a problem for students of any color?
They've been admitted. They're adults. They can decide to put in the effort and finish the degree requirements or leave. Why does the university care one way or the other?
If it's a money thing-- "We care because the longer you stay the more money we get"-- then why would they only care about students "of color"? Money spends the same no matter who it comes from.
Next >>