3 ms·
That may very well be so, but you've not mentioned how or what that case would be. For example, how does it prevent a law case, or liability, if said lawyers c
by b112 4mo ago
That may very well be so, but you've not mentioned how or what that case would be. For example, how does it prevent a law case, or liability, if said lawyers can't visit the property.
One could say the same thing about the inside of my home, or being on my land. No I don't have to let a lawyer in or around my land, but they can get a court order (with sufficient evidence).
I'm not going to expect you to lay out the legal reasoning, because I know you were making a point, and we don't all have time to spend hours firming up that point for an internet comment. But at the same time, I'm just saying, I don't see the way it's impacting the economy with a small collection of lawyers.
The unfortunate thing here is, most judges used to be lawyers, and of course lawyers arguing the case would be ... lawyers. So to get a truly impartial case, we'd almost need non-judges and non-lawyers to handle this case start to end.
- rayiner 4mo agoIt discourages potential lawsuits. If companies retaliate by banning entire law firms from accessing popular venues, that's going to discourage people from filing otherwise meritorious lawsuits against the venues. The difference between MSG and your house or your land is that the Nicks don't play at your house.
- skinfaxi 4mo agoDon't businesses have free association? Why should I have to allow someone into my business who has sued me?
- FireBeyond 4mo agoJames Dolan: "If any law firm in New York takes a client who plans to sue me, then all employees and their families of that law firm will be banned from any event at MSG". Leaving aside the fact that it is the client suing, the law firm just represents them (as generally, or at least for all intents, is required by law)... ... this is no different to a SLAPP. Whereby Dolan knows that very few law firms are going to be willing to represent a client who wants to sue MSG.
- skinfaxi 4mo agoI don't like it but should I be forced to allow lawyers who sued me to come into my establishment? I think the real issue is that MSG is basically a public utility.
- xp84 4mo ago> real issue is that MSG is basically a public utility. This is a weak argument to me. Who needs to go to MSG? I've never been there. It's a private entertainment venue, and most of the tickets there are too expensive for the bottom half of earners to even attend without going into debt. If you had to renew your drivers license in MSG, needed to enroll your kids in school there, if they held trials in there, if Penn Station itself was under MSG's ownership/control... any of those would be acting like a public utility.
- xp84 4mo agoThat's definitely the best argument I've seen, at least it makes a case for a narrow rule against 'retaliation' against officers of the court. Banning 'outspoken critics' though still seems fine to me. And such a regulation definitely doesn't need to have anything to do with facial recognition - one could imagine such a problematic retaliation being carried out by tons of methods both easy and labor-intensive. A bar could card all patrons and manually check the names (even not even collecting or storing any info) against a list of targeted persons kept behind the bar. An airline could refuse to ticket you if your firm sued them, etc.
- freejazz 4mo agoNew York City actually has a law that prohibits theaters from banning theatrical critics. Back in the day, the theaters just banned all the critics.
- solid_fuel 4mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]