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.
You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
Primarily Democratic backed company that doesn't like Republicans and don't want to provide them service? Boom excluded - "We reserve the right to refuse you service!". And honestly with as much data that has been collected they could legally do it on a data point that's not tied to your politics(ie misdemeanors, felonies, court cases, etc). It's absolutely going to be discriminatory, and they can hide it in the algorithms. And, not to pick on Democrats this is possible for any group, or individual to clearly point at any other group/individual. This is just the start, but it might be the actual end of individual expression without repercussions.
Not OP, but likely because Democrats have been doing this to Republicans online for the last 20 years or so (and almost never the other way around), so it's likely that we'll see the same behavior escape into the real world now that it's possible.
Hardly, the culture wars have been hitting in both directions for decades. The extreme right has been less successful at growing huge online companies, but giant companies can’t afford to kick off 1/2 their customers.
It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
I've seen a video showing something like this, of a shop clerk refusing service to a customer because he had a maga hat (or some other sort of trump paraphernalia, I don't recall exactly.)
As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
In fairness the MAGA hat is generally understood to stand for hateful positions (screw your feelings, screw immigrants, remove rights to minorities and women), which is a bit antagonistic. I assume a different republican piece of apparel (like a McCain 2016 shirt) would yield no reaction.
I still don't think people should discriminate but I do think MAGA in particular is objectively tainted, it's essentially the slogan of an attempted coup after all (I know officially it was "KAG" at that time, but MAGA remained the main "brand")
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.
Performative political advocacy makes you look asinine. Especially when the novelty wears off.
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.
