3 ms·
You have to look at the situation. In a case like this, private property rights are probably more important. It is an entertainment venue, there are plenty of
by II2II 4y ago
You have to look at the situation.
In a case like this, private property rights are probably more important. It is an entertainment venue, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and entertainment is not necessary for society.
Contrast that to something like grocery stores. I don't know what it is like in your neck of the woods, but almost everything in my area is controlled by three companies. Food is a necessity of life and there are not many alternatives. The grocery stores are large enough that banning someone will have very little consequence to the business, but it can have disproportionate consequences to the individual.
Even if you do accept banning people, where do you draw the line? A grocery store should have the right to ban shoplifters, but should it be a narrow ban (e.g. it affected a particular location) or should it be a broad ban (e.g. based upon some externally acquired list)? Should the ban be limited in duration, or can a person reasonably be banned for their actions ten years prior? It may seem reasonable to dismiss such people because the ban would be a consequence of their actions, but there comes a point where the consequences are excessive.
Then there is the question of who is being banned. The company stated their list extends to people working for the law firm, not just the people involved in litigation. If I recall correctly from another article, Conlon stated she wasn't involved in the particular case. In other words, there are instances of guilt and punishment by association. While it can be stated that one controls who they work for, is it reasonable to expect someone to quit their jobs because of legal (and possibly even moral) actions of their employer?
Treating inalienable property rights as a default is probably a good default position, but I am deeply concerned about it being used as an excuse to control others.
- LarryMullins 4y agoSynthesize your two examples and you get some really sinister results. Imagine getting banned from a national grocery store chain not because you shoplifted, but rather because one of your family, friends or coworkers shoplifted. The company just mutters something about thieves associating with thieves and now you can't buy food because you associated with the wrong people.
- fnimick 4y agoYou just invented the Chinese "social credit" system all over again. Sadly, I know a surprising number of people lamenting that we don't have it in the US - the thought is that collective punishment works to force a group to self-regulate, so why not apply it to groups of friends, family, etc and punish all of them as soon as one person steps out of line.
- CaptainZapp 4y ago> In a case like this, private property rights are probably more important. It is an entertainment venue, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and entertainment is not necessary for society. In principle I see where you're coming from. Nevertheless I disagree in this case. While a property owner should have the right to say who can or cannot use his property I think this becomes a lot more fuzzy when you own a venue, which runs performances open to the public. You can absolutely stipulate conditions upon ticket sales like accepted behavior or actions that a ticket buyer is prohibited from doing (no recordings or no smuggling of your own booze come to mind). I think it's a hell of a lot more sticky if you exclude visitors based on totally arbitrary factors, which I think happened here. If you provide a service, which is generally open to the public, this should come with the obligations not to exclude patrons for capricious or even frivolous reasons.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoI don't think that grocery stores that are allowed (and are big enough to) have cameras everywhere and a security service should be allowed to ban known shoplifters. They can already focus on them, catch them in the act, immobilize them, and have the police deal with the offenders.