231–240 of 250 posts
My thinking is basically they could argue that they agreed to the companies terms of arbitration and now the company refused to honour them requiring them to waste their time and money going to court?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"a very strong protections of speech" I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada. I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are…
> I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted I think it is properly rated. If you only have restrictions against vocabulary then you still have all the other liberty and you can advocate a repeal of the law that bugs you. I suspect the censorship you were noticing was self-censorship in order to avoid adverse public reaction. A legendary animated show spells out that you can only use the word "shit" me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC has obscenity regulations for broadcast TV in the US under the idea that the broadcast spectrum is owned by the people. Cable television has no such restrictions. That rationale holds up a lot less now than it did in the early days of broadcast television, but it's still a far cry from Canadian hate speech laws in which the expression of certain points of view is deemed a crime.
> a far cry from Canadian hate speech laws in which the expression of certain points of view is deemed a crime. Can you link to these laws? Because if you're talking about bill C-16, it's very clear that it isn't making it a crime to express certain beliefs, it's making it illegal to discriminate based on gender or gender identity. Just as the US does with regards to certain traits (such as color, religion, marital s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"a very strong protections of speech" I grew up in Canada, then moved to the US for 5 years before returning home to Canada. It always killed me when my US coworkers said teh same thing about "free speech" as i watched censored TV shows in the US which are not that way back in Canada. I think "free speech" on the US side is highly overrarted and if you look into it more seriously you will find many nations which are…
The "seven words" only applies to _broadcast_ mediums (television and radio) because of the limited shared medium thing. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning, but that's life. More generally, protections against the government for personal speech are more complete in the US (both in principle and in practice) than any other country I'm aware of. A few examples might be the Westboro Baptist Church or the infamous B…
we do have "hate laws" here, and you see others commenting and outlining how this is a "restriction" on free speech, but if you look at the law, you will see the US has something similiar as well:
Canada: https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-rest...
US : https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1204/breach-of-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US stands alone in consumer arbitration. In most countries consumer arbitration is either heavily regulated, or non binding. In EU pre-dispute binding consumer arbitration clauses are considered unfair terms. American Exceptionalism in Consumer Arbitration https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2265556
Thanks for this. I'm curious: I live in Germany. Is YC/HN's arbitration clause enforceable against me? Can I take them to court in Germany?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC still levies fines for certain levels profanity and certain forms of nudity for over-the-air broadcasts for TV and FM/AM radio (I dont think satellite is bound due to being a paid service). Granted the standard for finable offenses has loosened over the years, and you can get away with more late night (presumably because the kids should be in bed). I dont recall if the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Janet Jack…
Right, but over air broadcast hasn't been a primary mode of media consumption for decades at this point. The "censorship" on cable broadcasts you refer to are private companies keeping their content advertiser friendly not government restrictions.
"Between 1990 and 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines totalling $2.5 million to radio licensees for airing material it deemed indecent from The Howard Stern Show, the highest amount of any American radio show. "
"On April 8, 2004, Clear Channel was fined $27,500 for each of the 18 violations for a combined $495,000 NAL for airing the broadcast on its six stations that carried Stern"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like every mundane service these days either has added binding arbitration, or requires it on sign up. Anyone from Pornhub/various adult sites to Blue Apron all want you to waive away your rights. Even more troubling is binding-arbitration and class-action waivers for employment. They suppress cases of systematic mistreatment and allow issues to be swept under the rug, even more so than they are already.
If you running a "real" business frequently you have to get customers to sign waivers to get insurance. For instance, if you want to get insurance for a riding academy, they will want you to get all your riders to sign a contract that disclaims all liability, put up a big ugly sign about it, all that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The arbitration clause is for the company's protection, therefore the arbitration fees are their burden. If they breach the arbitration clause by not paying for arbitration in a timely manner, the plaintiff is entitled to go to court in the 9th and 10th Circuits.
But what if the arbitration clause says the plaintiff will pay? I believe that's what the parent comment was talking about.
As a European, reading these articles on arbitration, no-compete, required licenses, 'right-to-work', tipping, "gig work", firing over zoom, and so much more, it seems U.S. workers could really use some collective bargaining? Here unions are the obvious century-old solution to improve working conditions, why don't workers organize there? Are we just lucky here, like with universal health care?
Unfortunately there's a lot of FUD over unions here and how they ruin things, employ lazy workers, are corrupt etc and therefore don't deserve to exist. Of course the great irony is all of the arguments against unions also applies directly to corporations, yet those same people that are against unions don't really like to talk about the idea of abolishing corporations. Usually those arguments turn into 'one bad apple…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if the arbitration clause says the plaintiff will pay? I believe that's what the parent comment was talking about.
An arbitration clause can't force the plaintiff to pay because it's in the contract for the benefit of the defendant. There's no "consideration" provided to make the plaintiff give up the right to pursue legal action in a normal court of law.