5 ms·

Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or exclude anyone they want, as long as it's not due to membership in a protected class. You don't have a

• guerrilla 4y ago
  Why are you working against your own interest?
  • renewiltord 4y ago
    Working against one's own interest because one believes in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being principled".
    • RC_ITR 4y ago
      Sure but this whole “being principled” thing is so weird when people focus exclusively on the laws. Sure they can do this without anyone getting sued, but they can still face consequences for doing it (like people not going to see the Rockettes). People like the OP seem to forget that legality is not the ultimate moral code.
      • fullshark 4y ago
        Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to in principle I think, and they see THAT as a potential slippery slope more so than the opposite issue (being unable to pay for services due to societal freeze out).
        • RC_ITR 4y ago
          Again, I’m not arguing laws in this branch of the thread. I’m just saying people who lean on “the law is this, they are in the right” ignore a major part of society and commerce to their own detriment.
          • fullshark 4y ago
            I don't think that's what he's saying so much as the law reflects the principle I outline and they likely admire: state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do. The idea that the law is just a bunch of words and your job is to advocate for them to change if it improves your life in any way is not a great guiding principle.
            • Apocryphon 4y ago
              But treating the law as ironclad and immutable to the detriment of practical outcomes is just as bad. Therein lies the tension of civilization that must be kept in balance.
            • RC_ITR 4y ago
              >state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do. This is a very easy thing to say as a member of majority groups, but American (and South African and European, and...) history has shown that this attitude leads to some of the most grotesque outcomes in history. And where does it end? Should subsidies and variable tax rates be illegal (hope you're not a member of a church or a supporter of the arts!)? Those are control mechanisms the government uses to influence behaviors. Should federal employment be illegal? I don't think most Soldiers would risk their lives if not for the paycheck/benefits. Is the problem only with mandates?
        • BizarroLand 4y ago
          "Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to" That's not what happened though. They sold admission to a person and then rejected it because that person works for a firm that has an open case against another company that they're conglomerated with. It smells like retaliation to me, but I guess it will come down to what the courts decide.
    • WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
      > Working against one's own interest because one believes in a higher principle is a good thing. It's what we call "being principled". It can be a good thing while we regularly and objectively evaluate a principle's worth. We humans have a history of allowing principles to obtain rigidity and the diminished outcomes that follow. We also tend to allow principle creep w/o sufficient examination.
      • guerrilla 4y ago
        -
        • WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
          I assume because GP is at a point where they can use and value a principle but have not yet realized that (to remain beneficial) principles need rigorous reevaluation and updating.
    • guerrilla 4y ago
      Let me rephrase then: Why is GP working against the interests of everyone who isn't a rich asshole abusing their power? I hope that's clearer.
• ch4s3 4y ago
  While in principle I'm inclined to agree, I'm not sure I want to live in a world where you might get yanked from a business after paying for entry because your employer is deemed to be adversarial. This has a nasty tinge of a cyberpunk dystopia. It fells at best illiberal, in the classical sense it like a kind of techno-mercantilism.
  • Orangeair 4y ago
    What really bothers me here is that the lady wasn't even involved in a lawsuit against Radio City Music Hall, it just happens to be the case that they're connected through some billion dollar conglomerate to the restaurant that she's involved in litigation with. Pissing off a mom and pop store and getting banned from that one location is one thing, but treading on the toe of an enormous corporation and being met with this just doesn't sit right with me.
    • drewbeck 4y ago
      Yeah the possible chilling effect here is terrifying tbh, especially with all the mergers happening. Using the courts to get redress is a core pillar of our world (whether it should be or not is another topic). Imagine if Live Nation had a policy that anybody who works for any firm who is involved in any litigation against the company (or it’s many subsidiaries) can’t attend any of their shows or go to any of their venues. Firms would absolutely hesitate before they took on any related case bc of the impact on their employees, functionally increasing the ability of LN to do more bad. It’s a gross system.
      • ch4s3 4y ago
        Moving corporate conflict resolution out of the courts looks like a slope that could become quite slippery in the future.
• fullshark 4y ago
  Well with advances in surveillance tech maybe we should rethink that general principle, as we have re: the protected class carve out you mention. You may be ok with this but how about excluding certain members due to low social credit scores? Or because they vote a certain way? Or because they said something mean on twitter about the owner? etc.
  • mistrial9 4y ago
    similar to the legality of unpleasant speech .. a private venue does have the right to exclude because it is.. privately owned. Instead of taking to the streets (or social media) in righteous anger, I suggest considering your economic support right now, of companies that build and operate societal surveillance machinery; that build and operate companies that rely on indentured servitude; companies that build and operate private shopping areas with pleasing music and eye-catching ads while paving the living earth and hiring private snoopers. worthy of scrutiny and operating widely today in your town, no?
    • fullshark 4y ago
      Data collection / sharing regulations should absolutely be passed in America asap. Laws re: facial recognition are being passed in part because it creeps us out but that's just the tip of the iceberg. EU is taking the lead here because these are American companies, but I no longer look at things like "right to be forgotten" or GDPR or whatever and scoff at those wacky Euros.
• monocasa 4y ago
  I mean, taking the article at face value (which, albeit, can be a bit of a leap sometimes), they've had both a court order to stop this practice and it's out of compliance with other regulations to ban these individuals.
• kodyo 4y ago
  Amen. Parallel industries will spring up to serve those disenfranchised from establishment dystopian nonsense, and the ongoing ideological self-segregation will accelerate. Best of all possible outcomes.
  • rurp 4y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure of this. There are countless examples of businesses applying gross discrimination practices for generations, and only stopping when forced to by the government.
    • kodyo 4y ago
      Yep. That's the current narrative. Well done. Jim Crow laws were passed and enforced by the government. There are countless examples of businesses having no choice but to discriminate because government told them to. The government itself determined that segregation was A-OK as long as things were "separate but equal."
      • rurp 4y ago
        Just to clarify, you're claiming that ALL businesses that discriminated were legally compelled to? If you're just talking about some businesses at some point in time, that does nothing to refute my point; or "narrative" as you put it.
  • Apocryphon 4y ago
    Parallel industries are hard to spring up when, as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, entrenched oligopolies like MSGE and Live Nation buy up all of the independent venues. Unchecked corporate interests are the biggest enemies to free market competition and capitalism.
• ProAm 4y ago
  Except for the state provided liquor license they have that dictates differently.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• indymike 4y ago
  > Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or exclude anyone they want, as long as it's not due to membership in a protected class. There are a ton of laws preventing this behavior by venues. Basically if you sell tickets to the public, you HAVE to let the ticket holders in, barring bad behavior at the gate or contraband. The idea that something is private means you can do whatever you want is very naive. > if she doesn't like this policy she can start her own Christmas Spectacular show. She can also just sue and demand hearings about licenses that further prevent this kind of behavior (i.e. public venue, hospitality, zoning, liquor, food and beverage, etc...). From a social/business standpoint, punishing lawyers for working for an opposing firm is very small minded. Also facial recognition telling gate agents who a member of the public works for is scummy.
  • monksy 4y ago
    MSG Certainly does not abide by that.("you have to let ticket holders in") I was banned entry [Chicago Theater] (not formally but at the door which was weird as that I was not trying to progress in) for refusing to encase my phone in the yonder pouch. Once denied, I requested a full refund of my ticket. I don't recall having the notice when I bought the ticket and the the ticket didn't state the phone casing. (This was chris rock)
    • ipaddr 4y ago
      You could have launched a lawsuit claim damages.
      • xeromal 4y ago
        That would probably cost them more than 80$
        • Apocryphon 4y ago
          Wonder if there was a way to register as future plaintiffs for a potential class action suit of everyone else who was turned away for similar reasons.
• analog31 4y ago
  It's a corporation, which blurs the notion of what it means to be "private." To assert its rights as a private entity, the venue could restructure itself as a Sole Proprietorship or Partnership.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It’s a corporation, which blurs the notion of what it means to be “private.” Legally, under established precedent, it does not, though a legal doctrine that as creations of the state through law corporations are bound by the same due process and equal protection rules that would affect all other state organs would be interesting, as would the corollary that foreign corporations, as creations of foreign states, are arms of their governments, and that their agents, including employees and domestic subsidiaries and their employees, are agents of foreign governments subject to all the rules and restrictions applicable thereto would be interesting.
    • analog31 4y ago
      There are aspects of corporate law, such as limitation of liability, that correspond to no natural rights of private individuals. In fact, that's probably the granddaddy of all entitlements.
• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Radio City Music Hall is a private venue, they can ban or exclude anyone they want I don’t think anyone is arguing that this is outside of their legal rights. Things can be undesirable without being illegal, and just as MSG can legally punish this lawyer for distant connection to a lawsuit against them without violating the law, other people can note the behavior, criticize it, and even punish MSG for it in their business relations without violating the law.
• RC_ITR 4y ago
  You are forgetting that they have the right to not sell tickets to whomever they choose, but once that ticket is sold, they are on very shaky ground to ban someone unless they misrepresented who they were when buying the ticket. Tickets are contracts! How can they prove this isn’t some bogus way to account for oversold seats? What if an airline did the same on oversold flights?
  • defen 4y ago
    > they are on very shaky ground to ban someone unless they misrepresented who they were when buying the ticket. Then I suppose it will come down to whether the ticket terms included a clause that the purchaser/attendee was not employed by a firm involved in a lawsuit against MSGE.
    • skywal_l 4y ago
      Yes, that's why every time I buy something I check the list of companies my employers is in litigation with. /s
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • RC_ITR 4y ago
      Show me on the Ticketmaster website where the TOS is shown before purchase.
  • monksy 4y ago
    Nope they always have a clause stating that they can remove you from the venue for what ever reason they want. Ticket master also has anti-chargeback clauses as well.
    • RC_ITR 4y ago
      Oh, remove and deny entry mean the same thing now? Listen, if you’re going to be a pedantic law critic, at least be iron clad.