how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.
If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped...
>there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
Pre January 6th, you'd get about the response someone wearing a BLM shirt in red country would. Heckling and adversarialism, but generally civil interactions. Post January 6th, yes, someone wearing a MAGA hat is showing specific stripes.
If you’re still on the red hat train in 2023, my associating with you makes me look a bit dim myself. It’s kinda like naming your kid Adolf… you’re projecting something gross.