5 ms·

Uh, article lacking some background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Benjamin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Benjamin

baryphonic 6y ago
Why? Owen Benjamin may be an antisemitic nutcase (the little I know of him makes me think he is), but that's irrelevant to the legal merits of the case. To go into his background would be a fairly ridiculous example of bothsidesism, especially for a group like "Reclaim the Net," which seems to have an axe to grind against cancel culture, censorship and deplatforming. No one expects BLM to e.g. publish the evidence debunking the "hands up don't shoot" narrative around the killing of Michael Brown, [1] so why should other activists groups be held up to a more stringent standard? If Owen Benjamin's legal rights were violated, he deserves to be made whole (though I admit I'd enjoy him having some egg on his face if one or more people instrumental in securing his legal rights happened to be Jewish). [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030220 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030...
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  IMO this is a fundamental problem with American ideals. Antisemitism is straight up illegal here, why should society permit assholes like this to run around and make money encouraging more people to be like them? I'd rather work with a platform that is willing to separate from toxicity.
  - patmcc 6y ago
    Hate speech is a tricky thing to ban; who decides on what exactly constitutes antisemitism (or whatever)? America has traditionally leaned one way, other nations often go the other. I'd love to ban Nazis and hate speech...but I don't trust many people to decide where that line should be drawn.
  - sp332 6y ago
    The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will still cost them money. Anyway I think the article is misleading. This only worked because Patreon's TOS used to allow it. They've since changed the TOS https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-benjamin-fans-likely-to-pay-millions-in-arbitration-and-legal-fees/ https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-ben... and this wouldn't apply to any other company unless they had a similar oversight.
    - baryphonic 6y ago
      > The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will still cost them money. No, not quite. The question as adjudicated is whether a company that mandates a fairly specific arbitration process as a condition of using that company's services can unilaterally change the terms after becoming aware of imminent legal action being taken under those terms, whether significant fees that constitute a liability for the company are "irreparable harm" and then whether the courts or arbitrators are the ones who decide jurisdiction issues. Anyone can take any legal action they like if they file the paperwork properly and pay the fees, but have no guarantees of success. Also, I'm not sure Patreon's changes are actually enforceable (though I doubt any sane lawyer would want to test that before prevailing on a tortuous interference claim). Specifically, I doubt Patreon can require consumers to pay legal fees for arbitration beyond what CA law provides. I'm also not sure whether Patreon can carve out this exception to tortious interference actions this way, though a contract could in principle waive certain legal rights like the ability to sue over torts. Regardless, I think it's likely that anyone demanding individual arbitration's in CA could be liable whether or not they erred to the degree Patreon did.
  - MaulingMonkey 6y ago
    I'm all for breaking from anti-semitic toxicity. However, if you look into the history of government censorship in the US, you'll quickly find a lot more concerning things to worry about than merely the violation of ideals. And then you have what I hope is merely a vocal minority that acts so quickly to cudgel their opponents with political correctness that they'll happily label jews "anti-semites" - despite a clear lack of self loathing - for entirely reasonable disagreements on foriegn policy and other politics. Do you trust that vocal minority to not abuse the courts, given half a chance? I don't.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    > IMO this is a fundamental problem with American ideals. Antisemitism is straight up illegal here, why should society permit assholes like this to run around and make money encouraging more people to be like them? You must not be in America, then, since I assure you antisemitism is not illegal in America. When it crosses the line from thoughts or expressions and into acts rather is when it runs afoul of the law/society. And the point of this case seems to me to be that if a company wants to provide a platform that is separate from toxicity, then it needs to be legally careful or it needs to be willing to pay up if it runs afoul of the law.

baryphonic 6y ago

Why? Owen Benjamin may be an antisemitic nutcase (the little I know of him makes me think he is), but that's irrelevant to the legal merits of the case. To go into his background would be a fairly ridiculous example of bothsidesism, especially for a group like "Reclaim the Net," which seems to have an axe to grind against cancel culture, censorship and deplatforming. No one expects BLM to e.g. publish the evidence debunking the "hands up don't shoot" narrative around the killing of Michael Brown, [1] so why should other activists groups be held up to a more stringent standard? If Owen Benjamin's legal rights were violated, he deserves to be made whole (though I admit I'd enjoy him having some egg on his face if one or more people instrumental in securing his legal rights happened to be Jewish). [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030220 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030...

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
IMO this is a fundamental problem with American ideals. Antisemitism is straight up illegal here, why should society permit assholes like this to run around and make money encouraging more people to be like them? I'd rather work with a platform that is willing to separate from toxicity.
- patmcc 6y ago
  Hate speech is a tricky thing to ban; who decides on what exactly constitutes antisemitism (or whatever)? America has traditionally leaned one way, other nations often go the other. I'd love to ban Nazis and hate speech...but I don't trust many people to decide where that line should be drawn.
- sp332 6y ago
  The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will still cost them money. Anyway I think the article is misleading. This only worked because Patreon's TOS used to allow it. They've since changed the TOS https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-benjamin-fans-likely-to-pay-millions-in-arbitration-and-legal-fees/ https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-ben... and this wouldn't apply to any other company unless they had a similar oversight.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    > The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will still cost them money. No, not quite. The question as adjudicated is whether a company that mandates a fairly specific arbitration process as a condition of using that company's services can unilaterally change the terms after becoming aware of imminent legal action being taken under those terms, whether significant fees that constitute a liability for the company are "irreparable harm" and then whether the courts or arbitrators are the ones who decide jurisdiction issues. Anyone can take any legal action they like if they file the paperwork properly and pay the fees, but have no guarantees of success. Also, I'm not sure Patreon's changes are actually enforceable (though I doubt any sane lawyer would want to test that before prevailing on a tortuous interference claim). Specifically, I doubt Patreon can require consumers to pay legal fees for arbitration beyond what CA law provides. I'm also not sure whether Patreon can carve out this exception to tortious interference actions this way, though a contract could in principle waive certain legal rights like the ability to sue over torts. Regardless, I think it's likely that anyone demanding individual arbitration's in CA could be liable whether or not they erred to the degree Patreon did.
- MaulingMonkey 6y ago
  I'm all for breaking from anti-semitic toxicity. However, if you look into the history of government censorship in the US, you'll quickly find a lot more concerning things to worry about than merely the violation of ideals. And then you have what I hope is merely a vocal minority that acts so quickly to cudgel their opponents with political correctness that they'll happily label jews "anti-semites" - despite a clear lack of self loathing - for entirely reasonable disagreements on foriegn policy and other politics. Do you trust that vocal minority to not abuse the courts, given half a chance? I don't.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  > IMO this is a fundamental problem with American ideals. Antisemitism is straight up illegal here, why should society permit assholes like this to run around and make money encouraging more people to be like them? You must not be in America, then, since I assure you antisemitism is not illegal in America. When it crosses the line from thoughts or expressions and into acts rather is when it runs afoul of the law/society. And the point of this case seems to me to be that if a company wants to provide a platform that is separate from toxicity, then it needs to be legally careful or it needs to be willing to pay up if it runs afoul of the law.