kowenicki said:
Leadified said:
SlayerRondo said: She was violating the rights of the owners of the company as she was disrupting their business and they have every right to bar her from their property.
|
Should Sony or Microsoft ban me from the internet because I am "disrupting" their business by posting negative comments about them and their consoles? Even if this lady is crazy, in this case she was doing nothing illegal.
|
I'm not defending the actions here... but in what way is that remotely similar.
MS and Sony dont own the internet.
And you dont have to do something illegal to be banned from somewher.e Go into wal mart and shout loudly that it is shit, the staff are morons and the customers are dicks. You will be banned from wal mart... rightly so.
If you owned a bsiness and someone was disrupting it, then you would ban them too.
|
I get what you're saying.
I was pretty vague with my original statement, but my main problem with the entire situation is this line from the article.
"But Shepstone argued Scroggins had upset too many people to be tolerated. "I believe she is a public menace because what she does is she essentially trespasses not so much on property – though she does do that – but she trespasses on the soul of the community," he said. "She does not allow the people of this community any peace.""....and...
"Cabot in court filings does not accuse Scroggins of violence or of causing harm to property, and she has never been arrested or charged with trespass. She has not chained herself to machinery, or staged sit-ins."
"Trespassing on the soul of the community" is just an odd statement and definitely more vague than if the charge was because of what happened on private property. If it meant the public peace, wouldn't the city deal with her instead of this oil company? In general this situation is not clear enough to convice me the court's decesion was just but because it's only a temporary bar it's probably not the last of it.