[11909] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Advertisements and lawsuits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Monte Hall)
Sun Apr 24 09:13:47 1994
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 07:16:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "Monte Hall" <jhall3@mason1.gmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Regarding the Green Card ad controversy, Paul Robinson <PAUL@tdr.com>writes:
>So, as a matter of law, what has happened is that a service provider has
>made an immediate termination of someone's service merely on the basis of
>complaints about the content of a message that neither the message nor
>the content was illegal, nor that it violated any law and probably didn't
>violate the contract with the provider.
>Let's look at it from another standpoint. Someone sends out the same
)message over a modem from his office in, say, Las Vegas. Centel of Nevada
>immediately disconnects his phone service, and his landlord gets a truck
>and removes his files and places them on the street. Does he not have
>cause of action to sue them? You might say yes, since while his message
>might be considered inappropriate, there was no legal grounds for the
>phone company to disconnect his service nor for his landlord to perform an
>immediate eviction.
Centel of Nevada is a common carrier and as such has very only very limited
options as to whom it must provide service. Not really analogous to the
net. Not clear where the comparison to the landlord comes from.
>Now, let's say I am in a restaurant and sitting at a table, eating a
>sandwich I paid for, and am eating it in a rather offensive manner to
>someone out on the street. That person comes in and complains to the
>owner of the restaurant, who then grabs the food I paid for out of my
>hand and tells me to leave. Do I not have grounds to sue the owner of
>the restaurant for refusing to let me eat the food I paid for?
Most restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to any customer, and
would likely be within their rights in the instance described, sans the
food grabbing.
>Since there is no 1st Amendment issue to raise, the only issue that can
>be raised is contract requirements.
I agree that without regard to our opinions as to "fairness" or "propriety",
the contract between the parties should control.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. (Monte) Hall jhall3@mason1.gmu.edu 703 476-2691
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. (Monte) Hall jhall3@mason1.gmu.edu 703 476-2691
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
