We have explained why you are wrong, in as many different ways as we can. You just won't listen, So personally, I am done here. If you can't understand what bws111 is saying, I can't help you, you really are a lost cause.
Unfortunately for him, and you, his arguments amount to a hill of beans. The constitution says the Supreme Court decides on the meaning. They have. You do not get to substitute your own meaning, no matter how good you think your argument is. Read the constitution and the bill of rights. You do not have a right to free speech. The government is prohibited from restricting your speech, but that is NOT the same thing as an absolute right to free speech. If you think that is wrong, and you want such a absolute right, you will need to enact a constitutional amendment.
Sophistry. The right to free speech ISN'T PROTECTED. It is not listed as an inalienable right. The government is enjoined from infringing it, but not anyone else. For instance, if you want to come on to my property, you will have to submit to wearing a muzzle and not saying a word. If you don't like it, don't come on my property. If YOU limit your own free speech rights through contract, the government will enforce like it will enforce any other contract. You do not understand the mindset of the founders, you've demonstrated your lack of understanding right here. The bill of rights simply says what the government can't do to you, not what you can or can't do to yourself.
Now look at the 13th amendment. Totally different. That one says slavery is illegal, and congress can pass laws prohibiting it. So you can't sell yourself into slavery, because that is illegal. Limiting your own free speech is not.
The simple fact is that this is not open for debate, it is settled, by the Supreme Court. The meaning of the constitution is settled. It is not open to clever debaters substituting their own reinterpretations of it. You could come up with the best argument in the universe supporting your side, and it wouldn't matter. Your argument, no matter how good, would not change things. It is simply one person's opinion, and thus meaningless.
People HAVE explained why you are wrong, you just refuse to listen. You are incorrect because the Supreme Court has ruled you are incorrect, and the constitution itself says the Supreme court is the final arbiter of such matters. End of story. Selling yourself into slavery is not unconstitutional. It is illegal. Big difference. Here is the 13th amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]
and here is the first:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I hope you can see the difference here. The 13th says that slavery shall not exist, and gives Congress the power to enact LAWS making it illegal. The 1st says that the government can not make laws prohibiting free speech. The government has not made any laws prohibiting free speech. Enforcing contract is not making a law. And the 1st says nothing about what you, yourself can do, while the 13th definitely does.
In closing, you are making an extraordinary claim: that all Non Discolsure Agreements are unconstitutional and unenforceable. NDAs plainly exist, and have been enforced for hundreds of years. Therefore, your claim requires some extraordinary proof on your part. Not something that just sounds good. You can argue all you like, but if your basic premises are faulty, all the logic in the world won't lead you to a correct conclusion.
Please give it a rest, I am starting to feel embarrassed for you. You are clearly just trying to save face with semantic arguments and a stubborn refusal to admit your mistakes. But no one, and I mean no one, is buying it, so all you are doing is making yourself look foolish in front of a large crowd of people.
Who the hell has professional experience eating eggs?!? Nobody. Nobody is paid to eat eggs. One person's opinion of the runniness of eggs is the same as any other persons' opinion. Either the eggs are the way that customer wants them, or they aren't.
You are AGAIN judging yourself superior to others when you say they lack professional experience. You have no real proof that any yelp review is detrimental to anyone's business. I, for instance, have never in my life looked at yelp, nor will I.
You say there is no recourse, but there is the same recourse there always was for this sort of thing. The fact that we are talking about an online service is immaterial. You have the same recourse as when someone writes an anonymous letter to the editor complaining about your business, and the newspaper publishes it. Or if they put up fliers all around the neighborhood complaining about you.
If I owned a small business and someone complained about my eggs, I wouldn't get my feelings hurt. I've worked as a chef. People complain all the time, you try to fix it. You DON'T get your feelings hurt. That would be silly.
I wouldn't be angry if someone complained. If it was one person, I would figure, they are just an asshole with a loud mouth. There are plenty of them out there. If there was more than one complaining, I would FIX THE PROBLEM. And then I would get a bunch of friends to go on yelp and write reviews saying the problem was fixed.
I firmly believe that yelp has only helped kill businesses that deserve to die. If you are getting a ton of negative reviews, YOU are the problem, not the reviewers. Don't like it? Get the fuck out of the game, you aren't ready for the free market.
Then explain why the courts don't agree with you. I mean, you keep saying the same thing, and just about everyone else who stayed awake in civics class keeps telling you that you are mistaken, that your interpretation is incorrect. So, do you believe there is some sort of vast conspiracy keeping this all a secret, and if people just realized the truth, the government would have no power over them? Do you really believe the government has no right, and should have no right, to enforce contracts?
You seem to think that if you keep saying it, that will make it true. But it won't, and it shouldn't. People should have the right to limit their own speech voluntarily, and the government should have the right to enforce such contracts, and in fact, the government not only has that right, they use it all the time.
And nobody has a constitutional right to free speech. They only have a right to be free from government interference in their speech. When the government enforces contracts, they are not enacting a law that infringes on your free speech rights. They are enforcing contract.
The meaning of all this isn't open for debate, it has been settled by hundreds of years of legal precedent. Your conclusions are simply wrong. The constitution does not mean what you seem to think it means. Your opinion about what you think the constitution means is worthless and meaningless. You are not a constitutional scholar. You are not a lawyer. You are just some guy who fell asleep during civics class.
If your opinion had any merit, non disclosure agreements would be unenforceable. NDAs are enforceable. Therefore, your opinion is without merit. Case closed, you lose, now shut the fuck up and stop spreading falsehoods.
So what if people call you a racist? That is their right. You exercise free speech in telling a joke, they exercise free speech by calling you a racist. How come your joke is legitimate, but their commentary on your joke is not? No one is preventing you from saying anything. You can say 'nigger' all you like, and if someone punches you for saying it, THEY are breaking the law.
But that's not good enough for you. You want to prevent anyone from complaining about your speech. You want to return to the days of white privilege, when a white man could say whatever he liked, and everyone else was too cowed to complain. You are absolutely and without a doubt, a racist. As long as you keep engaging in racism, we will keep calling you a racist. You don't have the power to stop us from speaking.
Does it burn, knowing you are powerless to stop us from telling you how we feel about you? I hope it burns.
Well aren't you clever? You seem to have found a bug in the constitution which prevents the government from enforcing contracts. I wonder why nobody else in the history of our country ever noticed that? You should probably tell someone what you've found, it will change everything!
I find it highly amusing that you seem to believe you are cleverly leading the other posters into some sort of logical trap, "HAH! Now I have you! You've fallen into my trap and admitted that in order for the government to enforce contracts, the must censor me, and according to the first amendment, censorship is illegal! Check and mate!" That isn't how it works, and you only succeed in coming across as smug and uneducated.
You don't understand how the constitution works. It does not pretend to say what third parties can or can't do, it only says what the Federal government can or can't do. For example, it appears you do not know what the first amendment actually says. You seem to be under the impression that it protects your right to free speech. It doesn't. It prohibits the Federal government from limiting your right to free speech. Here, for your education, is the ENTIRE text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where in there do you see anything preventing YOU from signing away your right to free speech? Where in that do you see anything preventing the government from enforcing contract?
See, now that was my first question: how are they going to tie some psuedonymous account to the person who signed the contract? The whole service seems doomed to fail.
Original post was saying the average person has no right to criticize, as the average person is a "faux connoisseur." I was responding to this elitist post, a post that was engaging in class warfare by claiming the average person has no right to complain, as they are all just whiny egotistical complainers who are too stupid to critique the goods and services they receive.
Bullshit. This is just another elitist moaning that his sheep-like customers aren't being as sheep-like as they are supposed to be. How DARE they get together and compare notes? How is he supposed to take advantage of them, as is his right as an elite, if they actually talk to each other? There aught to be a law!
How was the original post rational? It's all just fucking opinion, you douche.
"But come the internet with pseudonymity (or at least obscurity), people have deemed themselves connoisseurs of consumption-- veritable professional critics of the utterly mundane."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
"Yelp houses an asinine number of these people who will judge an entire business (small, large, chain, etc.) on single experiences."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
They scrutinize everything mundane because the quality of service and products are so similar, there's NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT otherwise."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
I'm sorry, the original post is emotional, negative vitriol full of opinion and zero reasoning or facts. The only difference is that the original post agrees with your bias, whereas my post doesn't..
Why, are you a greedy corporate overlord? What's it to you? Do you defend all powerful people from criticism, or do you have some criteria that must be met for you to leap to their defense? You really don't have to look too hard to spot greed and people who seem to believe themselves to be your overlords.
You ever watch Monty Python's Life of Brian? You remind me of the prisoner who shares Brian's cell and defends the Romans. Maybe if you kiss their ass enough, the corporate overlords will let you be one of them, and you can oppress those who are inferior to you. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Well, you may be right, I'm not a lawyer and I suspect you aren't either, but it certainly wouldn't be cut and dried. Say you did get bad service and posted something online. The monitoring service would contact the site and show them the contract you signed. The site would take down the comment. At that point, you would need to sue to get it put back up. Maybe you would win, maybe you wouldn't, but you would need to spend the money to fight this.
That isn't how it works. You aren't talking about breaking the contract, which means not living up to your end of the bargain, you are talking about invalidating the contract after the fact. By signing the contract in the first place, you have assigned the copyright to the doctor. It is, at that point, his copyright. How would you go about taking it back? Just saying, "I break the contract, it's not yours anymore" doesn't work.If it did, contracts would be utterly worthless, because anyone could say the contract was broken any time they wanted.
You only need teeth when one party wants to impose penalties if the other party fails to comply. In this case, the other party can not fail to comply, the copyright is reassigned to the doctor as soon as the contract is signed. It's not as though copyright is a physical thing you can simply refuse to deliver later on. You delivered the goods when you signed the contract, it is not physically possible for you to break it.
No, that's not what the contract says. it is not 'in exchange for GOOD service." That would be useless! I mean, if you are trying to prevent bad reviews, but your contract only applies to good service, then any bad review automatically negates the contract. You sign the contract in exchange for being seen at all, good service or bad.
Well I am not a morning person at all, so it sucks that the only way to guarantee being seen in a reasonable time is to get there first thing in the morning.
Don't you hate it when inferior people get all uppity and attempt to judge their betters? They should just mindlessly consume what they are told to and spare us their worthless, inferior opinions.
Think it through, man! Contracts can be broken when one party fails to live up to the conditions of the contract. In this case, that is not possible. You assign the copyright to the doctor, it's a done deal. You post a nasty review. The doctor tells the site in question, "That review is mine, here's the contract that says so. Take it down." And the site in question does so. How in the world are you going to do anything about that? Tell the site, "Nuh uh, it's mine despite what the contract says, 'cause I'm breaking the contract, see?" What do you think the site would do? What would a judge say?
Man, I hate it when doctors charge ME a fifty dollar cancellation fee if I'm ten minutes late, but they feel free to schedule patients at ten minutes a pop when they KNOW it is going to take longer. It's not emergencies that make a doctor late, it is greed and a complete lack of respect for their patients' time.
Slashdot Mirror
We have explained why you are wrong, in as many different ways as we can. You just won't listen, So personally, I am done here. If you can't understand what bws111 is saying, I can't help you, you really are a lost cause.
Unfortunately for him, and you, his arguments amount to a hill of beans. The constitution says the Supreme Court decides on the meaning. They have. You do not get to substitute your own meaning, no matter how good you think your argument is. Read the constitution and the bill of rights. You do not have a right to free speech. The government is prohibited from restricting your speech, but that is NOT the same thing as an absolute right to free speech. If you think that is wrong, and you want such a absolute right, you will need to enact a constitutional amendment.
You can't "comment as an authority." You can comment. If some idiot takes you as an authority, that is the idiot's problem.
Sophistry. The right to free speech ISN'T PROTECTED. It is not listed as an inalienable right. The government is enjoined from infringing it, but not anyone else. For instance, if you want to come on to my property, you will have to submit to wearing a muzzle and not saying a word. If you don't like it, don't come on my property. If YOU limit your own free speech rights through contract, the government will enforce like it will enforce any other contract. You do not understand the mindset of the founders, you've demonstrated your lack of understanding right here. The bill of rights simply says what the government can't do to you, not what you can or can't do to yourself.
Now look at the 13th amendment. Totally different. That one says slavery is illegal, and congress can pass laws prohibiting it. So you can't sell yourself into slavery, because that is illegal. Limiting your own free speech is not.
The simple fact is that this is not open for debate, it is settled, by the Supreme Court. The meaning of the constitution is settled. It is not open to clever debaters substituting their own reinterpretations of it. You could come up with the best argument in the universe supporting your side, and it wouldn't matter. Your argument, no matter how good, would not change things. It is simply one person's opinion, and thus meaningless.
People HAVE explained why you are wrong, you just refuse to listen. You are incorrect because the Supreme Court has ruled you are incorrect, and the constitution itself says the Supreme court is the final arbiter of such matters. End of story. Selling yourself into slavery is not unconstitutional. It is illegal. Big difference. Here is the 13th amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]
and here is the first:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I hope you can see the difference here. The 13th says that slavery shall not exist, and gives Congress the power to enact LAWS making it illegal. The 1st says that the government can not make laws prohibiting free speech. The government has not made any laws prohibiting free speech. Enforcing contract is not making a law. And the 1st says nothing about what you, yourself can do, while the 13th definitely does.
In closing, you are making an extraordinary claim: that all Non Discolsure Agreements are unconstitutional and unenforceable. NDAs plainly exist, and have been enforced for hundreds of years. Therefore, your claim requires some extraordinary proof on your part. Not something that just sounds good. You can argue all you like, but if your basic premises are faulty, all the logic in the world won't lead you to a correct conclusion.
Please give it a rest, I am starting to feel embarrassed for you. You are clearly just trying to save face with semantic arguments and a stubborn refusal to admit your mistakes. But no one, and I mean no one, is buying it, so all you are doing is making yourself look foolish in front of a large crowd of people.
Who the hell has professional experience eating eggs?!? Nobody. Nobody is paid to eat eggs. One person's opinion of the runniness of eggs is the same as any other persons' opinion. Either the eggs are the way that customer wants them, or they aren't.
You are AGAIN judging yourself superior to others when you say they lack professional experience. You have no real proof that any yelp review is detrimental to anyone's business. I, for instance, have never in my life looked at yelp, nor will I.
You say there is no recourse, but there is the same recourse there always was for this sort of thing. The fact that we are talking about an online service is immaterial. You have the same recourse as when someone writes an anonymous letter to the editor complaining about your business, and the newspaper publishes it. Or if they put up fliers all around the neighborhood complaining about you.
If I owned a small business and someone complained about my eggs, I wouldn't get my feelings hurt. I've worked as a chef. People complain all the time, you try to fix it. You DON'T get your feelings hurt. That would be silly.
I wouldn't be angry if someone complained. If it was one person, I would figure, they are just an asshole with a loud mouth. There are plenty of them out there. If there was more than one complaining, I would FIX THE PROBLEM. And then I would get a bunch of friends to go on yelp and write reviews saying the problem was fixed.
I firmly believe that yelp has only helped kill businesses that deserve to die. If you are getting a ton of negative reviews, YOU are the problem, not the reviewers. Don't like it? Get the fuck out of the game, you aren't ready for the free market.
Not sure what you were trying to link to. It didn't work.
Then explain why the courts don't agree with you. I mean, you keep saying the same thing, and just about everyone else who stayed awake in civics class keeps telling you that you are mistaken, that your interpretation is incorrect. So, do you believe there is some sort of vast conspiracy keeping this all a secret, and if people just realized the truth, the government would have no power over them? Do you really believe the government has no right, and should have no right, to enforce contracts?
You seem to think that if you keep saying it, that will make it true. But it won't, and it shouldn't. People should have the right to limit their own speech voluntarily, and the government should have the right to enforce such contracts, and in fact, the government not only has that right, they use it all the time.
I'm sorry, I can't really make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here.
And nobody has a constitutional right to free speech. They only have a right to be free from government interference in their speech. When the government enforces contracts, they are not enacting a law that infringes on your free speech rights. They are enforcing contract.
The meaning of all this isn't open for debate, it has been settled by hundreds of years of legal precedent. Your conclusions are simply wrong. The constitution does not mean what you seem to think it means. Your opinion about what you think the constitution means is worthless and meaningless. You are not a constitutional scholar. You are not a lawyer. You are just some guy who fell asleep during civics class.
If your opinion had any merit, non disclosure agreements would be unenforceable. NDAs are enforceable. Therefore, your opinion is without merit. Case closed, you lose, now shut the fuck up and stop spreading falsehoods.
So what if people call you a racist? That is their right. You exercise free speech in telling a joke, they exercise free speech by calling you a racist. How come your joke is legitimate, but their commentary on your joke is not? No one is preventing you from saying anything. You can say 'nigger' all you like, and if someone punches you for saying it, THEY are breaking the law.
But that's not good enough for you. You want to prevent anyone from complaining about your speech. You want to return to the days of white privilege, when a white man could say whatever he liked, and everyone else was too cowed to complain. You are absolutely and without a doubt, a racist. As long as you keep engaging in racism, we will keep calling you a racist. You don't have the power to stop us from speaking.
Does it burn, knowing you are powerless to stop us from telling you how we feel about you? I hope it burns.
Well aren't you clever? You seem to have found a bug in the constitution which prevents the government from enforcing contracts. I wonder why nobody else in the history of our country ever noticed that? You should probably tell someone what you've found, it will change everything!
I find it highly amusing that you seem to believe you are cleverly leading the other posters into some sort of logical trap, "HAH! Now I have you! You've fallen into my trap and admitted that in order for the government to enforce contracts, the must censor me, and according to the first amendment, censorship is illegal! Check and mate!" That isn't how it works, and you only succeed in coming across as smug and uneducated.
You don't understand how the constitution works. It does not pretend to say what third parties can or can't do, it only says what the Federal government can or can't do. For example, it appears you do not know what the first amendment actually says. You seem to be under the impression that it protects your right to free speech. It doesn't. It prohibits the Federal government from limiting your right to free speech. Here, for your education, is the ENTIRE text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where in there do you see anything preventing YOU from signing away your right to free speech? Where in that do you see anything preventing the government from enforcing contract?
See, now that was my first question: how are they going to tie some psuedonymous account to the person who signed the contract? The whole service seems doomed to fail.
Original post was saying the average person has no right to criticize, as the average person is a "faux connoisseur." I was responding to this elitist post, a post that was engaging in class warfare by claiming the average person has no right to complain, as they are all just whiny egotistical complainers who are too stupid to critique the goods and services they receive.
Bullshit. This is just another elitist moaning that his sheep-like customers aren't being as sheep-like as they are supposed to be. How DARE they get together and compare notes? How is he supposed to take advantage of them, as is his right as an elite, if they actually talk to each other? There aught to be a law!
How was the original post rational? It's all just fucking opinion, you douche.
"But come the internet with pseudonymity (or at least obscurity), people have deemed themselves connoisseurs of consumption-- veritable professional critics of the utterly mundane."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
"Yelp houses an asinine number of these people who will judge an entire business (small, large, chain, etc.) on single experiences."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
They scrutinize everything mundane because the quality of service and products are so similar, there's NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT otherwise."
Opinion, and emotional, not rational
I'm sorry, the original post is emotional, negative vitriol full of opinion and zero reasoning or facts. The only difference is that the original post agrees with your bias, whereas my post doesn't..
Why, are you a greedy corporate overlord? What's it to you? Do you defend all powerful people from criticism, or do you have some criteria that must be met for you to leap to their defense? You really don't have to look too hard to spot greed and people who seem to believe themselves to be your overlords.
You ever watch Monty Python's Life of Brian? You remind me of the prisoner who shares Brian's cell and defends the Romans. Maybe if you kiss their ass enough, the corporate overlords will let you be one of them, and you can oppress those who are inferior to you. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Well, you may be right, I'm not a lawyer and I suspect you aren't either, but it certainly wouldn't be cut and dried. Say you did get bad service and posted something online. The monitoring service would contact the site and show them the contract you signed. The site would take down the comment. At that point, you would need to sue to get it put back up. Maybe you would win, maybe you wouldn't, but you would need to spend the money to fight this.
That isn't how it works. You aren't talking about breaking the contract, which means not living up to your end of the bargain, you are talking about invalidating the contract after the fact. By signing the contract in the first place, you have assigned the copyright to the doctor. It is, at that point, his copyright. How would you go about taking it back? Just saying, "I break the contract, it's not yours anymore" doesn't work.If it did, contracts would be utterly worthless, because anyone could say the contract was broken any time they wanted.
You only need teeth when one party wants to impose penalties if the other party fails to comply. In this case, the other party can not fail to comply, the copyright is reassigned to the doctor as soon as the contract is signed. It's not as though copyright is a physical thing you can simply refuse to deliver later on. You delivered the goods when you signed the contract, it is not physically possible for you to break it.
No, that's not what the contract says. it is not 'in exchange for GOOD service." That would be useless! I mean, if you are trying to prevent bad reviews, but your contract only applies to good service, then any bad review automatically negates the contract. You sign the contract in exchange for being seen at all, good service or bad.
Well I am not a morning person at all, so it sucks that the only way to guarantee being seen in a reasonable time is to get there first thing in the morning.
Don't you hate it when inferior people get all uppity and attempt to judge their betters? They should just mindlessly consume what they are told to and spare us their worthless, inferior opinions.
Think it through, man! Contracts can be broken when one party fails to live up to the conditions of the contract. In this case, that is not possible. You assign the copyright to the doctor, it's a done deal. You post a nasty review. The doctor tells the site in question, "That review is mine, here's the contract that says so. Take it down." And the site in question does so. How in the world are you going to do anything about that? Tell the site, "Nuh uh, it's mine despite what the contract says, 'cause I'm breaking the contract, see?" What do you think the site would do? What would a judge say?
Man, I hate it when doctors charge ME a fifty dollar cancellation fee if I'm ten minutes late, but they feel free to schedule patients at ten minutes a pop when they KNOW it is going to take longer. It's not emergencies that make a doctor late, it is greed and a complete lack of respect for their patients' time.
That would be invalid, as it would be signed under duress.