4 ms·

You seem really confused about how this works. If your argument is "twitter can't delete these due to it violating US law" that is an argument about twitter, an

You seem really confused about how this works. If your argument is "twitter can't delete these due to it violating US law" that is an argument about twitter, and not it's TOS. If your argument is "people don't have to follow the TOS because the TOS requires them to not comply with the law", that is simply wrong. If the TOS asks you to do something illegal in your country, it does not make the TOS illegal per-se. It means you can't use the service, because you can't comply with the TOS. There generally is no "well, i can do whatever i want and it's twitter's problem because i can't comply with the TOS". The fact that you can't comply for legal reasons is your problem, not the TOS's or Twitters.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nmcfarl 11y ago
The "you can't use the service" because the TOS conflicts with the laws in you locality bit isn't necessarily true - it varies a lot by country. Plenty of places just invalidate the parts of your TOS (or any other contract) that conflict with the law. Which leaves it up to the company to decide whether they wish to pursue business in that locality. INAL
- DannyBee 11y ago
  IAAL :) So, "conflict with the law" is a not-well-defined term. There are 196 countries, so yes, you could say it varies. But i'm not sure which are the "plenty" you are thinking about, and i'd love to see specific examples of what you are thinking about. Generally, most countries have pretty consistent law here. If the contract is a contract for you to perform something illegal (like murder), that will not be enforced. A contract that says "you must do X if you wish to use our service", in basically any reasonable country you can think of, is not going to be invalidated if you can't do X because it's illegal when done in very certain ways in very specific circumstances. This is because, again, in general, you can't claim the benefit of the contract (using the service) but not have to have the burden.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    TOS are typically not contracts.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      In what way are you referring to? I'm trying to understand what distinction you are trying to draw. You are simply stating this bare as if it makes any sense, and i can tell you, it does not :) Unilateral contracts are still contracts :) (you can make some sane distinctions between licenses and contracts, but only in pretty simple cases, and twitters TOS is not a copyright license, but instead, an actual contract)
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        TOS may technically be some definition of contract. I mean to imply that most TOS are not binding, executed contracts.
        DannyBee 11y ago
        This is not right. Most TOS, in most states in the US (and a lot of countries), are going to be binding. There are some that overreach. I expect google/twitter/et al have written theirs carefully enough to not fall into this case.
  - nmcfarl 11y ago
    I kind of thought the generally consistent law was the way you describe it – however my not a lawyer understanding was if the contract requires X which violates the law in a very specific circumstance in a very specific way that particular clause under that particular circumstance, that particular way would be void, but the whole contract would not and would still stand - benefits and burdens combined. Including that clause, under "normal" circumstances. Which is basically to say my understanding was that, in most countries, you can reasonably sign a legal contract and know you will never have to commit an illegal action in pursuit of it. And if your counterpart in the contract really wants you to commit an illegal action it's on them to decide whether they want to do business in a country where the action is it illegal. Not on you. Once again, IANAL. And my understanding could be way wrong.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nmcfarl 11y ago

The "you can't use the service" because the TOS conflicts with the laws in you locality bit isn't necessarily true - it varies a lot by country. Plenty of places just invalidate the parts of your TOS (or any other contract) that conflict with the law. Which leaves it up to the company to decide whether they wish to pursue business in that locality. INAL

DannyBee 11y ago
IAAL :) So, "conflict with the law" is a not-well-defined term. There are 196 countries, so yes, you could say it varies. But i'm not sure which are the "plenty" you are thinking about, and i'd love to see specific examples of what you are thinking about. Generally, most countries have pretty consistent law here. If the contract is a contract for you to perform something illegal (like murder), that will not be enforced. A contract that says "you must do X if you wish to use our service", in basically any reasonable country you can think of, is not going to be invalidated if you can't do X because it's illegal when done in very certain ways in very specific circumstances. This is because, again, in general, you can't claim the benefit of the contract (using the service) but not have to have the burden.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  TOS are typically not contracts.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    In what way are you referring to? I'm trying to understand what distinction you are trying to draw. You are simply stating this bare as if it makes any sense, and i can tell you, it does not :) Unilateral contracts are still contracts :) (you can make some sane distinctions between licenses and contracts, but only in pretty simple cases, and twitters TOS is not a copyright license, but instead, an actual contract)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      TOS may technically be some definition of contract. I mean to imply that most TOS are not binding, executed contracts.
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        This is not right. Most TOS, in most states in the US (and a lot of countries), are going to be binding. There are some that overreach. I expect google/twitter/et al have written theirs carefully enough to not fall into this case.
- nmcfarl 11y ago
  I kind of thought the generally consistent law was the way you describe it – however my not a lawyer understanding was if the contract requires X which violates the law in a very specific circumstance in a very specific way that particular clause under that particular circumstance, that particular way would be void, but the whole contract would not and would still stand - benefits and burdens combined. Including that clause, under "normal" circumstances. Which is basically to say my understanding was that, in most countries, you can reasonably sign a legal contract and know you will never have to commit an illegal action in pursuit of it. And if your counterpart in the contract really wants you to commit an illegal action it's on them to decide whether they want to do business in a country where the action is it illegal. Not on you. Once again, IANAL. And my understanding could be way wrong.