4 ms·

I should be stating the obvious here, but the fact that I even have to post this means that obviously, I am not. Just because something is written into the ter

by rrrx3 12y ago

I should be stating the obvious here, but the fact that I even have to post this means that obviously, I am not. Just because something is written into the terms of an agreement doesn't make it legal.

ulfw 12y ago
!00% agree. It sure as hell doesn't make it right either.
owksley 12y ago
I think they know it's illegal / unconstitutional. They're banking on self-censorship by people who aren't certain where they stand legally.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  ...How is this "unconstitutional"? Not everything that is illegal is unconstitutional. I am also skeptical that this is illegal, but considering the jurisdiction may have many applicable laws, it's hard to say that it is or isn't illegal without significant research. But surely it has nothing to do with constitutional law. Similar pieces of other contracts are valid and common and are called "non-disparagement clauses". I don't see how this differs.
  - owksley 12y ago
    You're quite right. I hadn't realised that the constitution relates to actions between the government and the people only. Reading HN comments is always educational! I suppose it's more correct to say that it isn't in the spirit of the First Amendment, or free-speech in general.
jebus989 12y ago
Yeah, you are not. Say someone writes a contract saying that they can slap me in the face and each time they do I must pay $100, if I carefully read and then sign that contract, and they then slap me three times — have I been assaulted or do I owe $300, or both?
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  There are people who pay for this sort of service. Or so I've heard.
- baddox 12y ago
  I would say that you owe $300.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Boxing and other martial activities require you to contractually remove yourself from claiming you have been assaulted as long as any violence stays within agreed rules. It would be very hard to train people in boxing, if your customers could sue you for assault every time you hit them.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Context matters. Participation in a sport generally brings with it an expectation to receive minor injuries customary to that sport. A legal contract depends on mutual understanding. People learning to box generally understand they are going to get hit. People booking a wedding party generally don't expect to be held responsible for their guests having opinions they post online. The hotel would have to make this policy very clear in order to achieve mutual understanding, and that doesn't mean just putting it on the contract and the webpage for the customer to find on their own.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > Participation in a sport generally brings with it an expectation to receive minor injuries customary to that sport. Participation in a contract that specifically covers terms for being slapped also bring with it an expectation of being slapped.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        I'm not sure how this is a response. It's not enough to have language in a contract. There needs to be understanding by both sides about what is being agreed to. Since the Internet engaged mob-mode before engaging investigation-mode, we don't know how clear these terms are to people who are booking weddings. It might be very clear because they send an email explicitly telling the bridal party about these terms and asking them to consent, which would also be a signal to the party about the quality of online reviews. Or it might be buried in the middle of 12 other clauses and the customer doesn't know about it.
baddox 12y ago
I deliberately used the phrase "I don't see much of a problem with this" rather than "this is legal." I have no idea if it's legal, but I know that I don't have a problem with it.
aestra 12y ago
I would really like to know what specific law(s) do you think this private party is violating? I am very curious. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

by rrrx3 12y ago

ulfw 12y ago

!00% agree. It sure as hell doesn't make it right either.

owksley 12y ago

I think they know it's illegal / unconstitutional. They're banking on self-censorship by people who aren't certain where they stand legally.

cookiecaper 12y ago
...How is this "unconstitutional"? Not everything that is illegal is unconstitutional. I am also skeptical that this is illegal, but considering the jurisdiction may have many applicable laws, it's hard to say that it is or isn't illegal without significant research. But surely it has nothing to do with constitutional law. Similar pieces of other contracts are valid and common and are called "non-disparagement clauses". I don't see how this differs.
- owksley 12y ago
  You're quite right. I hadn't realised that the constitution relates to actions between the government and the people only. Reading HN comments is always educational! I suppose it's more correct to say that it isn't in the spirit of the First Amendment, or free-speech in general.

jebus989 12y ago

Yeah, you are not. Say someone writes a contract saying that they can slap me in the face and each time they do I must pay $100, if I carefully read and then sign that contract, and they then slap me three times — have I been assaulted or do I owe $300, or both?

rahimnathwani 12y ago
There are people who pay for this sort of service. Or so I've heard.
baddox 12y ago
I would say that you owe $300.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Boxing and other martial activities require you to contractually remove yourself from claiming you have been assaulted as long as any violence stays within agreed rules. It would be very hard to train people in boxing, if your customers could sue you for assault every time you hit them.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Context matters. Participation in a sport generally brings with it an expectation to receive minor injuries customary to that sport. A legal contract depends on mutual understanding. People learning to box generally understand they are going to get hit. People booking a wedding party generally don't expect to be held responsible for their guests having opinions they post online. The hotel would have to make this policy very clear in order to achieve mutual understanding, and that doesn't mean just putting it on the contract and the webpage for the customer to find on their own.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Participation in a sport generally brings with it an expectation to receive minor injuries customary to that sport. Participation in a contract that specifically covers terms for being slapped also bring with it an expectation of being slapped.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      I'm not sure how this is a response. It's not enough to have language in a contract. There needs to be understanding by both sides about what is being agreed to. Since the Internet engaged mob-mode before engaging investigation-mode, we don't know how clear these terms are to people who are booking weddings. It might be very clear because they send an email explicitly telling the bridal party about these terms and asking them to consent, which would also be a signal to the party about the quality of online reviews. Or it might be buried in the middle of 12 other clauses and the customer doesn't know about it.

baddox 12y ago

I deliberately used the phrase "I don't see much of a problem with this" rather than "this is legal." I have no idea if it's legal, but I know that I don't have a problem with it.

aestra 12y ago

I would really like to know what specific law(s) do you think this private party is violating? I am very curious. I can't think of any off the top of my head.