3 ms·

> The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expe

> The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. > If you don't think that's suppression of free speech Whose speech is being suppressed? The Rockettes are free to sing, the lawyer is free to complain about missing the show, and the venue is free to explain their point of view. Everybody involved appears to be speaking freely.

Folcon 4y ago
The lawyer who's organisation is involved in a case, is being denied service. Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company. So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company. I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you? Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  If I were taking this at all seriously, I suppose I would have to agree with you. The whole thing just seems frivolous, and both parties entirely unsympathetic; a terrible case for setting any precedent we should care about.
welshwelsh 4y ago
A publicly traded corporation is not "someone." They don't have points of view or the ability to speak. In many ways, they are far more similar to government institutions than to private citizens, and should be treated as such whenever free speech is concerned. The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 4y ago
MSG offers entertainment to the public. They sell tickets which are fungible. How do you expect an attorney to be able to perform her professional responsibilities if she can be punished for doing so? What happens when her firm is involved in litigation with Cushman & Wakefield and she can’t meet clients with offices in Rockefeller Center due to a ban?
xattt 4y ago
> Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. One things that’s being missed is the compartmentalization of the individual in their professional capacity and as a private citizen. The person was attending the venue as the latter. The only time this partition is disregarded is in vindication.

Folcon 4y ago

The lawyer who's organisation is involved in a case, is being denied service. Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company. So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company. I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you? Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.

marssaxman 4y ago
If I were taking this at all seriously, I suppose I would have to agree with you. The whole thing just seems frivolous, and both parties entirely unsympathetic; a terrible case for setting any precedent we should care about.

welshwelsh 4y ago

A publicly traded corporation is not "someone." They don't have points of view or the ability to speak. In many ways, they are far more similar to government institutions than to private citizens, and should be treated as such whenever free speech is concerned. The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Spooky23 4y ago

MSG offers entertainment to the public. They sell tickets which are fungible. How do you expect an attorney to be able to perform her professional responsibilities if she can be punished for doing so? What happens when her firm is involved in litigation with Cushman & Wakefield and she can’t meet clients with offices in Rockefeller Center due to a ban?

xattt 4y ago

> Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. One things that’s being missed is the compartmentalization of the individual in their professional capacity and as a private citizen. The person was attending the venue as the latter. The only time this partition is disregarded is in vindication.