The Royal Navy used to sail back into port with the pirates still swinging from the yardarm. Icky.
But seriously, given that we're talking about a handful of people, the expense is trifling for any Western government - the problem is jurisdictional issues. Essentially, many of the European countries doubt that their constitutions would allow them to exercise jurisdiction; others doubt that a case could be proven beyond reasonable doubt; Kenya is fed up of being a dumping ground for sufficient numbers of pirates as actually do make them a financial burden and Somalia has no functioning government to do anything.
It was fair game in 1945. The political fallout from making a nuclear first strike on a city today would probably be 1000 worse than the radioactive fallout.
Is it not then punishment before conviction if someone has to sell their car or other property to post bail?
Punishment? no, just utterly and jaw-droppingly outrageous on a scale I would never expect to see outside some third-world hell hole - talk about being 'subjects' rather than citizens.
But anyway, this is the UK, being asked to post cash up-front for bail is virtually unheard of.
Not in the UK. When money was put up to secure Assange's release on bail, that was really unusual. It was also only offered as a surety - the cash didn't have to be produced upfront (actually, in that case a small amount of it may have been up-front, but most of it was surety).
I'm fairly sure (having just read them) that the UK has laws making unauthorised access to computers illegal, so long as either the computer, or the person, is in the UK. That they would have been written any other way would be inexplicable.
So now a person in the UK hacks a US computer. Under your plan, he would be arrested and prosecuted in the UK, by the UK. What are they going to charge him with, violating a US law? Violating the law against hacking UK computers (even though he didn't hack a UK computer)? That makes no sense at all.
He'd be prosecuted for breaking the law against hacking any computers from within the UK. Frankly, it's your idea that each government has written itself a narrow little law where an offence only exists if the computer attacked is within their borders that makes no sense. Under that, I could sit in any country and break into computers in any other country which has no "you can't break in to my computers law" with impunity. That's virtually privateering by omission.
And no, the procedures are certainly not the same everywhere. They may be similar, but they certainly are not 'the same'. For instance, court orders may be required for different things, etc.
I didn't say the actual proceedures would be the same, I said that certain essential characteristics are the same. And is it really so hard, when gathering evidence with a view to its being used in a different jurisdiction, to get a hold of that jurisdictions rules and make sure you don't do anything which would render the evidence unuseable?
Your last comment is the dumbest of all. Did you ever hear of the right to confront your accuser? It is pretty difficult to cross-examine a FedEx bag. So now I suppose you would have the FBI agents (who did the investigation in the US) travel to the UK to testify at the trial of a UK suspect who didn't actually violate any UK law.
Sorry, my mistake, when I used a gross oversimplification to make my point in a light-hearted fashion, I assumed that you were smart enough to see the point being made. My bad. Yes, you would absolutely have the FBI agents providing prosecution evidence come to the UK to be cross-examined at the UK trial of a UK suspect who is accused of (what we've already discussed to be) violating UK law. You're arguing for dragging a defendant thousands of miles, to stand trial in an inappropriate jurisdiction (for 4 reasons: Because it's not where the defendant was when the alleged offence by them was committed, because it's not where they were initially detained despite that place having a law which could be used to prosecute the alleged offence, because the defendant is not based there and would be in a poor position to defend themselves, and because the jurisdiction they're being taken to claims itself to have been the victim) primarily for the convenience of the prosecution and its witnesses.
Cite please. I've only seen it carried through to prosecution once, and the guy got 16 weeks. (Which I also can't cite. Ho-hum) It's also pretty rare for someone to get consecutive sentences in a UK court (precisely because a handful of trivial crimes turn into life imprisonment).
Secondly, and more importantly, the crime was committed against the US, not the UK. Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?
Wow, are you insane? That right there is exactly why the US should not be prosecuting this. The recipe for organising an unfair trial virtually begins "Start with a jury who you can convince that they are the victims"
All of the procedures followed, etc are going to be US procedures, not UK procedures. All the rules of evidence are going to be US rules.
Like thorough, careful and well documented isn't the same wherever you are in the developed world...
That makes no sense at all. First of all, if the CIA's website (for example) gets hacked, the FBI is going to investigate it, not Scotland Yard or whoever investigates such things for the UK.
Probably SOCA. But what's to stop the FBI having their investigation, putting all their eveidence in a FedEx bag, and sending it over to SOCA so they can get the CPS to organise the prosecution? (except the likelihood of FedEx losing the bag, of course)
Where did he say that he didn't have a job? All we know is that his income is low enough that he needs to be on his mother's crappy policy to make ends meet. The phrase "help pay rent" in the last paragraph indicates that OP is paying some of it themselves.
Which means you're castigating him for not earning enough to pay for insurance that he clearly needs. And, if he gets over his shame enough to conjure up a higher-paying job, you will then castigate whoever starts doing his current job in hisplace for not earning enough.
Why go for 50.000 ? It is not that the ink of the pen is so expensive you cannot not ask for 5 million.
Depending on what number system you're using and how much attention you paid in school, of course. If you only learned as far as I, V and X, then writing $5,050,000 probably would be quite awkward.
no, you absolutely should have the right to sue the department of corrections (or whoever else it who runs the prison) for imprisoning you in an adjacent cell to someone whose lawful activity is causing damage to your health.
That's awesome. Their PSAs work so well that even jerks like you who had probably never heard of them before now know that you'll get chucked out on your ear for behavior you probably consider perfectly normal. I'm perfectly fine with you and your cellphone staying the hell away from the Alamo.
Conveniently for you, I don't even live on that side of the Atlantic. Don't go to movies very often. Am completely non-disruptive when I'm there, and wouldn't like someone disrupting my movie either. I just happen to be incensed by injustice wherever I see it, even if it's being done for my benefit.
I don't know whether your ineducable or merely ignorant, but there are costs, not just direct costs, but stress and the possibility of violence, for theater employees to actually do the right thing and kick disruptive patrons out.
I'm aware that there are costs. Guess what? Part of running a business is that you bear the costs of dealing with problem customers. Hours before this was posted, there was the story about the woman who discovered to her cost that groupon was a tremendously bad deal - all I remember is a chorus of people saying that large costs from problem customers (in that case bargain-hunters) are part of running a business and she should suck it up. Congrats on 'ineducable', by the way, not only did I have to look that up, but I had to do it online because it wasn't in my dead-tree dictionary.
It is perfectly reasonable to try to assign as much of these costs to the perpetrators as possible. While it is difficult (though not impossible) to sue them for breach of contract, it is plenty easy to just not give them their money back and have them try to sue you.
So you admit (swapping back into legal argument mode momentarily) that if the point at which payment were made were elsewhere it would be very hard for the theater operator to actually obtain the money? But merely because they already have the money in their possession and it's probably not worth it for the patron to use the courts to get it back, it's ok to keep it?
I'd love to be on that jury...
You do realise that, as the amount at issue is less than $20, there won't BE a jury, right? Also, since there don't seem to be any facts in dispute it would all be down to legal wrangling even if it were over $20.
You have proposed the idea of a ban, which others have repeatedly pointed out is completely unworkable.
Not. My. Problem. Just because doing right by someone is expensive or complicated is not a justification for throwing your hands in the air and doing the wrong thing instead. Using your power as landowner to ban someone is the proper way to go about dealing with this, refusing a refund is not. It is not mandatory, when criticising a policy taken by someone else, to propose a better alternative - which seems to be the only argument against my position (except bald disagreement) which anyone has used. Everyone is cooing over how great AD is for caring about their customers and ensuring a great experience for the 'right' crowd, but they're doing this at the expense of the people they're chucking out. If this were actually costing them something - if they were buying someone out of their seat to end the disruption and paying it gladly because it improved the experience for their other patrons - they would indeed be worthy of praise for how they care about their customers.
Do you know how hard it would be to keep a violator out?
Keeping them out? Hard. Recognising them as the person you kicked out two weeks ago when you go to kick them out again? Easy. If they come back in and aren't disruptive then it's probably not in either party's interests to do anything about it anyway, but you're still only going to get to play the 'act up and get out of a crappy movie' trick once, or possibly twice. Beyond the general overhea
Because I'm primarily talking about whether it's right or wrong to have a we-can-chuck-you-out-without-a-refund policy, as well as whether it's right to wrong to enforce it. (Obviously, if it's wrong to have such a policy, as I maintain, then it becomes automatically wrong to enforce it.)
Fair enough, but once she's paid for a ticket and been let in, they have accepted her as a customer. Imagine if the ticket let you be in the theater for the specified duration of the film. Period. If they want to now cancel that because they no longer want her as a customer, they can cancel having taken her money.
A shopkeeper can refuse service to whomsoever he will; but if, after having served you, he came running down the street and tried to cancel your transaction because he'd changed his mind about serving you, you wouldn't stand for it? would you? Now imagine if he were trying to do that AND keep your money.
Running down the street too silly? Imagine if you've bought something, and on the way out something else catches your eye. Whilst you're browsing this other item, the shopkeeper decides that he no longer wishes to serve you and tells you to leave his shop. Fine, but what if as part of not wanting to serve you, he doesn't want you to have the thing you've already bought, so he takes that from you? With, or without refund, that absolutely would not be ok.
(Note: I'm making an ethical argument, I'm fully aware of the fact that legally the shopkeeper would just be committing a clear-cut offence of theft)
So.... your little plan is to *ban* her, eh? Exactly how is that supposed to work... Hmmmmm?
Er, you keep an eye out for her, and if she turns up you have her arrested (because trespassing is a pretty serious criminal offence).
The exact mechanism for how you 'keep an eye out' is not my problem - trespassing law is long established and every other landowner who gives direction to a specific person that they're not allowed on their property has to solve this one. Why should movie theaters be any different? The real answer is that they don't really not want her business, and would rather keep her money, and give her the opportunity to come and give them some more.
ok, the thrust of my argument is that by attaching such conditions (and especially by enforcing them) they are behaving like asshats. All you seem to have is 'everyone else does it' and 'it's ok to do it because that's what they're doing'.
There is no reason why a break clause allowing one party to unilaterally cancel a contract on grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the other should allow the cancelling party out of their obligations whilst requiring the other party to fulfill theirs. Let's have another thought experiement: Imagine if it were possible to just withdraw a payment you've made. You call up your bank, ask them to withdraw it and whoosh, the money is back in your account. You get thrown out - you call your bank and get your money back. Why would that be wrong? Everyone is now back where they started - you haven't seen the movie, the theater hasn't got your money.
Nowehere outside small purchases, where it's not worth the cost to go to court, would anyone think this to be remotely acceptable. Imagine if you paid a builder up-front $500k to build you a house, and by the time he'd got through $150k worth of labour and materials you'd already given him 3 complete changes of the plans, he goes "screw this - you're being completely unreasonable" and just ends any further involvement in the project. Would that be cool with you? $500k spent, and no house? Even though there's $350k worth of work that he's already been paid for and not done? No, of course you wouldn't, you'd sue his ass off. If he managed to wriggle out of giving you the $350k back by using a get-out clause which wasn't thrown out he'd never get any work again - because no-one is going to do business with an asshat who works on those sorts of terms.
I believe I proposed that she ought to be given a ban.
Every now and again, someone might act up to get their money back when they're in a crappy movie, but that's going to be a negligible number if doing that also causes them to be barred from the theater. As for the difficulty in enforcing such bans - that's a problem that every other type of business owner has to deal with.
I don't believe that private business owners have any role in 'teaching someone a lesson'.
She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons
That's called a cost of doing business. If they want to end the disruption sooner than the end of the movie, they can stump up to refund what she paid them to be allowed to be there. Legally, maybe the 'rules' get incorporated into the contract with the patron, but it's still pathetic and still wrong. The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong. Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
Why is the fact that ballpark operators are equally unreasonable an argument against what I said, or remotely relevant?
Slashdot Mirror
The Royal Navy used to sail back into port with the pirates still swinging from the yardarm. Icky.
But seriously, given that we're talking about a handful of people, the expense is trifling for any Western government - the problem is jurisdictional issues. Essentially, many of the European countries doubt that their constitutions would allow them to exercise jurisdiction; others doubt that a case could be proven beyond reasonable doubt; Kenya is fed up of being a dumping ground for sufficient numbers of pirates as actually do make them a financial burden and Somalia has no functioning government to do anything.
When you nuke a country do you think the leaders are the only ones that get hurt?
They have hardened bunkers, they probably won't get hurt at all.
It was fair game in 1945. The political fallout from making a nuclear first strike on a city today would probably be 1000 worse than the radioactive fallout.
Well that's some nice attention for David Milliband who is leader of the opposition.
perhaps you missed this. The Mr Millibean who is leader of the opposition is Ed, not David. I know, not much difference...
the 8th prevents "(cruel .and. unusual) punishments", not "(cruel punishments) .and. (unsual punishments)"
Is it not then punishment before conviction if someone has to sell their car or other property to post bail?
Punishment? no, just utterly and jaw-droppingly outrageous on a scale I would never expect to see outside some third-world hell hole - talk about being 'subjects' rather than citizens.
But anyway, this is the UK, being asked to post cash up-front for bail is virtually unheard of.
something that would be normal everywhere
Not in the UK. When money was put up to secure Assange's release on bail, that was really unusual. It was also only offered as a surety - the cash didn't have to be produced upfront (actually, in that case a small amount of it may have been up-front, but most of it was surety).
I'm fairly sure (having just read them) that the UK has laws making unauthorised access to computers illegal, so long as either the computer, or the person, is in the UK. That they would have been written any other way would be inexplicable.
So now a person in the UK hacks a US computer. Under your plan, he would be arrested and prosecuted in the UK, by the UK. What are they going to charge him with, violating a US law? Violating the law against hacking UK computers (even though he didn't hack a UK computer)? That makes no sense at all.
He'd be prosecuted for breaking the law against hacking any computers from within the UK.
Frankly, it's your idea that each government has written itself a narrow little law where an offence only exists if the computer attacked is within their borders that makes no sense. Under that, I could sit in any country and break into computers in any other country which has no "you can't break in to my computers law" with impunity. That's virtually privateering by omission.
And no, the procedures are certainly not the same everywhere. They may be similar, but they certainly are not 'the same'. For instance, court orders may be required for different things, etc.
I didn't say the actual proceedures would be the same, I said that certain essential characteristics are the same. And is it really so hard, when gathering evidence with a view to its being used in a different jurisdiction, to get a hold of that jurisdictions rules and make sure you don't do anything which would render the evidence unuseable?
Your last comment is the dumbest of all. Did you ever hear of the right to confront your accuser? It is pretty difficult to cross-examine a FedEx bag. So now I suppose you would have the FBI agents (who did the investigation in the US) travel to the UK to testify at the trial of a UK suspect who didn't actually violate any UK law.
Sorry, my mistake, when I used a gross oversimplification to make my point in a light-hearted fashion, I assumed that you were smart enough to see the point being made. My bad.
Yes, you would absolutely have the FBI agents providing prosecution evidence come to the UK to be cross-examined at the UK trial of a UK suspect who is accused of (what we've already discussed to be) violating UK law.
You're arguing for dragging a defendant thousands of miles, to stand trial in an inappropriate jurisdiction (for 4 reasons: Because it's not where the defendant was when the alleged offence by them was committed, because it's not where they were initially detained despite that place having a law which could be used to prosecute the alleged offence, because the defendant is not based there and would be in a poor position to defend themselves, and because the jurisdiction they're being taken to claims itself to have been the victim) primarily for the convenience of the prosecution and its witnesses.
it's not automatic - you still get a trial, and it's a two year maximum sentence. The only time I've seen this prosecuted, the guy got 16 weeks.
Cite please. I've only seen it carried through to prosecution once, and the guy got 16 weeks. (Which I also can't cite. Ho-hum) It's also pretty rare for someone to get consecutive sentences in a UK court (precisely because a handful of trivial crimes turn into life imprisonment).
AFAIK there is no compensation if found innocent, if you lost your job then too bad...
That is also what I understand the position to be, although I don't know if that's ever been on a (un)pleasant trip to Strasbourg yet.
Secondly, and more importantly, the crime was committed against the US, not the UK. Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?
Wow, are you insane? That right there is exactly why the US should not be prosecuting this.
The recipe for organising an unfair trial virtually begins "Start with a jury who you can convince that they are the victims"
All of the procedures followed, etc are going to be US procedures, not UK procedures. All the rules of evidence are going to be US rules.
Like thorough, careful and well documented isn't the same wherever you are in the developed world...
That makes no sense at all. First of all, if the CIA's website (for example) gets hacked, the FBI is going to investigate it, not Scotland Yard or whoever investigates such things for the UK.
Probably SOCA. But what's to stop the FBI having their investigation, putting all their eveidence in a FedEx bag, and sending it over to SOCA so they can get the CPS to organise the prosecution? (except the likelihood of FedEx losing the bag, of course)
Where did he say that he didn't have a job? All we know is that his income is low enough that he needs to be on his mother's crappy policy to make ends meet. The phrase "help pay rent" in the last paragraph indicates that OP is paying some of it themselves.
Which means you're castigating him for not earning enough to pay for insurance that he clearly needs. And, if he gets over his shame enough to conjure up a higher-paying job, you will then castigate whoever starts doing his current job in hisplace for not earning enough.
You must be a troll, surely.
Why go for 50.000 ? It is not that the ink of the pen is so expensive you cannot not ask for 5 million.
Depending on what number system you're using and how much attention you paid in school, of course. If you only learned as far as I, V and X, then writing $5,050,000 probably would be quite awkward.
but a doctor visit is only about $150 out of pocket
Only? that's 2-3 days of my pre-tax pay to see the doctor for what? 10 minutes? 20?
no, you absolutely should have the right to sue the department of corrections (or whoever else it who runs the prison) for imprisoning you in an adjacent cell to someone whose lawful activity is causing damage to your health.
That's awesome. Their PSAs work so well that even jerks like you who had probably never heard of them before now know that you'll get chucked out on your ear for behavior you probably consider perfectly normal. I'm perfectly fine with you and your cellphone staying the hell away from the Alamo.
Conveniently for you, I don't even live on that side of the Atlantic. Don't go to movies very often. Am completely non-disruptive when I'm there, and wouldn't like someone disrupting my movie either. I just happen to be incensed by injustice wherever I see it, even if it's being done for my benefit.
I don't know whether your ineducable or merely ignorant, but there are costs, not just direct costs, but stress and the possibility of violence, for theater employees to actually do the right thing and kick disruptive patrons out.
I'm aware that there are costs. Guess what? Part of running a business is that you bear the costs of dealing with problem customers. Hours before this was posted, there was the story about the woman who discovered to her cost that groupon was a tremendously bad deal - all I remember is a chorus of people saying that large costs from problem customers (in that case bargain-hunters) are part of running a business and she should suck it up.
Congrats on 'ineducable', by the way, not only did I have to look that up, but I had to do it online because it wasn't in my dead-tree dictionary.
It is perfectly reasonable to try to assign as much of these costs to the perpetrators as possible. While it is difficult (though not impossible) to sue them for breach of contract, it is plenty easy to just not give them their money back and have them try to sue you.
So you admit (swapping back into legal argument mode momentarily) that if the point at which payment were made were elsewhere it would be very hard for the theater operator to actually obtain the money? But merely because they already have the money in their possession and it's probably not worth it for the patron to use the courts to get it back, it's ok to keep it?
I'd love to be on that jury...
You do realise that, as the amount at issue is less than $20, there won't BE a jury, right?
Also, since there don't seem to be any facts in dispute it would all be down to legal wrangling even if it were over $20.
You have proposed the idea of a ban, which others have repeatedly pointed out is completely unworkable.
Not. My. Problem.
Just because doing right by someone is expensive or complicated is not a justification for throwing your hands in the air and doing the wrong thing instead. Using your power as landowner to ban someone is the proper way to go about dealing with this, refusing a refund is not.
It is not mandatory, when criticising a policy taken by someone else, to propose a better alternative - which seems to be the only argument against my position (except bald disagreement) which anyone has used.
Everyone is cooing over how great AD is for caring about their customers and ensuring a great experience for the 'right' crowd, but they're doing this at the expense of the people they're chucking out. If this were actually costing them something - if they were buying someone out of their seat to end the disruption and paying it gladly because it improved the experience for their other patrons - they would indeed be worthy of praise for how they care about their customers.
Do you know how hard it would be to keep a violator out?
Keeping them out? Hard. Recognising them as the person you kicked out two weeks ago when you go to kick them out again? Easy. If they come back in and aren't disruptive then it's probably not in either party's interests to do anything about it anyway, but you're still only going to get to play the 'act up and get out of a crappy movie' trick once, or possibly twice. Beyond the general overhea
The ticket is the contract.
The contract provisions were spelled out in multiple places.
And my position is that they're asshats for that being the contract.
If you disagree, then fine, but we might as well just go our seperate ways each believing ourselves to be right and the other to be wrong.
Have you read the rest of the thread? I already answered this one.
"Don't like the film? Act like an asshole and get your money back! but don't expect to come back again"
Because I'm primarily talking about whether it's right or wrong to have a we-can-chuck-you-out-without-a-refund policy, as well as whether it's right to wrong to enforce it. (Obviously, if it's wrong to have such a policy, as I maintain, then it becomes automatically wrong to enforce it.)
Fair enough, but once she's paid for a ticket and been let in, they have accepted her as a customer.
Imagine if the ticket let you be in the theater for the specified duration of the film. Period.
If they want to now cancel that because they no longer want her as a customer, they can cancel having taken her money.
A shopkeeper can refuse service to whomsoever he will; but if, after having served you, he came running down the street and tried to cancel your transaction because he'd changed his mind about serving you, you wouldn't stand for it? would you? Now imagine if he were trying to do that AND keep your money.
Running down the street too silly? Imagine if you've bought something, and on the way out something else catches your eye. Whilst you're browsing this other item, the shopkeeper decides that he no longer wishes to serve you and tells you to leave his shop. Fine, but what if as part of not wanting to serve you, he doesn't want you to have the thing you've already bought, so he takes that from you? With, or without refund, that absolutely would not be ok.
(Note: I'm making an ethical argument, I'm fully aware of the fact that legally the shopkeeper would just be committing a clear-cut offence of theft)
So.... your little plan is to *ban* her, eh? Exactly how is that supposed to work... Hmmmmm?
Er, you keep an eye out for her, and if she turns up you have her arrested (because trespassing is a pretty serious criminal offence).
The exact mechanism for how you 'keep an eye out' is not my problem - trespassing law is long established and every other landowner who gives direction to a specific person that they're not allowed on their property has to solve this one. Why should movie theaters be any different?
The real answer is that they don't really not want her business, and would rather keep her money, and give her the opportunity to come and give them some more.
ok, the thrust of my argument is that by attaching such conditions (and especially by enforcing them) they are behaving like asshats. All you seem to have is 'everyone else does it' and 'it's ok to do it because that's what they're doing'.
There is no reason why a break clause allowing one party to unilaterally cancel a contract on grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the other should allow the cancelling party out of their obligations whilst requiring the other party to fulfill theirs.
Let's have another thought experiement: Imagine if it were possible to just withdraw a payment you've made. You call up your bank, ask them to withdraw it and whoosh, the money is back in your account. You get thrown out - you call your bank and get your money back. Why would that be wrong? Everyone is now back where they started - you haven't seen the movie, the theater hasn't got your money.
Nowehere outside small purchases, where it's not worth the cost to go to court, would anyone think this to be remotely acceptable. Imagine if you paid a builder up-front $500k to build you a house, and by the time he'd got through $150k worth of labour and materials you'd already given him 3 complete changes of the plans, he goes "screw this - you're being completely unreasonable" and just ends any further involvement in the project. Would that be cool with you? $500k spent, and no house? Even though there's $350k worth of work that he's already been paid for and not done? No, of course you wouldn't, you'd sue his ass off. If he managed to wriggle out of giving you the $350k back by using a get-out clause which wasn't thrown out he'd never get any work again - because no-one is going to do business with an asshat who works on those sorts of terms.
I believe I proposed that she ought to be given a ban.
Every now and again, someone might act up to get their money back when they're in a crappy movie, but that's going to be a negligible number if doing that also causes them to be barred from the theater. As for the difficulty in enforcing such bans - that's a problem that every other type of business owner has to deal with.
I don't believe that private business owners have any role in 'teaching someone a lesson'.
She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons
That's called a cost of doing business. If they want to end the disruption sooner than the end of the movie, they can stump up to refund what she paid them to be allowed to be there. Legally, maybe the 'rules' get incorporated into the contract with the patron, but it's still pathetic and still wrong. The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong.
Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
Why is the fact that ballpark operators are equally unreasonable an argument against what I said, or remotely relevant?