Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aphasial t1_j5wwe4i wrote

Reply to comment by Jaded_Prompt_15 in NY AG wants answers on Madison Square Garden's use of facial recognition against legal opponents by Sorin61

Okay, but what's wrong with that?

If someone is actively suing me, I'm not letting them into a place I own either.

−75

LucyRiversinker t1_j5wx7yo wrote

The lawyers are not the plaintiffs. They are officers of the court.

51

Trygolds t1_j5xkwkn wrote

They are also not a protected class.

−22

ukezi t1_j5xro9i wrote

However for instance their alcohol licence requires them to admit members of the public and enumerates the reason they can bar entry. Being an employee in a firm that is representing someone that is suing us is obviously not on the list.

12

Trygolds t1_j5y7vth wrote

Than revoke the license based on that. A ruling that would make lawyers a protected class is froth with pitfalls.

I get in this case they are a big venue but I live in a small town and lets face it regardless of the lawyers just doing their jobs I can see someone not wanting to have a lawyer suing them as a patron.

We have seen in many cases lawyers exhibiting unethical legal behavior and how reluctant the bar is to sanction them

2

ukezi t1_j5y9033 wrote

I don't think this is about them becoming a protected class. This is about retaliation being illegal, especially a blanket ban this wide. At least after they bought a ticket. I imagine the discussion would be different if they didn't sell a ticket in the first place.

The sale of a ticket is a contract and one should expect that the contract will not be broken without good reason.

5

aphasial t1_j5x27ii wrote

Exactly. Even more potential cause.

−55

CadeMan011 t1_j5xfh4n wrote

Either you're trolling or you genuinely don't understand.

The people suing them aren't being turned away from events, employees of a very big law firm representing one client that is suing them are being turned away.

18

aphasial t1_j5zj8oz wrote

This isn't a troll -- in fact I'm not certain the rest of you aren't trolling (with the caveat that: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/10l7d41/comment/j5xdf1b/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 , which as someone not living in New York, I can't speak to)

Other than that (i.e., elsewhere), so long as discrimination isn't happening involving a Protected Class, venues can kick out or block entry to whomever they want. A venue (though maybe not in NY) has the right to refuse service to anyone if they so choose and that's that. Elsewhere there would be no legal question at all here.

−1

LucyRiversinker t1_j60u4d2 wrote

I wouldn’t have a problem with your reasoning if the plaintiffs were barred from entering the premises. I certainly wouldn’t work for you if you sued me. But the lawyers are doing their job. Yes, the people at MSG have a right because lawyers and employees are not a protected class. But they are the wrong target, if MSG wants to hurt its “enemies.” So we are not arguing the legality itself, but the consequences of this sort of attitude. I hate the slippery-slope fallacy, bit when does it end? Want to ban the lawyer of record? Ok. She or he directly benefits from the success of the lawsuit. The paralegal. O….k? The secretary? I am not so sure. IT department? The mailroom staff? Office maintenance staff? The cleaners? When is revenge enough?

1

aphasial t1_j60vol2 wrote

I mean, I agree that there's plenty to talk about here when it comes to whether this is a good idea, or fair.

But plenty of people in this and similar threads are arguing around legality and rights of entry. And while that NY liquor law is interesting, I get the impression most of those arguing as such are simply suffering from the collective, seemingly-generation-wide illusion that discrimination not involving protected classes is somehow illegal.

2

LucyRiversinker t1_j60y7js wrote

Agreed. Nobody is per se entitled to attend an event at MSG, or have a Twitter account, or have their own tv station carried by DirectTV (NewsMax is being dropped). This is just stupid vindictive. There is no benefit to MSG.

2

tehtinman t1_j5xvxn1 wrote

Why can’t the accounting guy for the the law firm just watch the Knicks lose in-person in peace?

5

AdUpstairs7106 t1_j5xdf1b wrote

For starters under NY law, if you have a liquor license, you can not refuse service to someone unless they pose a clear security threat.

So unless you want to lose millions in liquor sales you cannot do that.

13

aphasial t1_j5zihk4 wrote

Thanks... this is the first response that actually addresses the question.

That seems like a weird law, but I live 2000 miles away in California. Does that apply to venues in general or only to liquor stores? (In CA I believe that would be an open vs closed container distinction...)

While there are additional regulations whenever ABC is involved, in CA so long as we're not dealing with protected classes, venues absolutely have the right to refuse service, kick someone out, 86 them entirely, or otherwise control access, and the liquor license doesn't block them from it.

Is this statewide in NY or just a NYC thing?

1

AdUpstairs7106 t1_j5zt8n3 wrote

Venues in general unless you are a private members club only.

2

indoninja t1_j60wlha wrote

If you are open to the public, or are selling tickets to the public, there should be a pretty high bar to blanket ban groups of people.

And if you’re going to do that, the onus should be on you publicly list, all those people, and all the groups, and make it clear to anyone buying a ticket who is on that list.

In this case, they were banning anyone they could find connected to a law firm that was representing a person, suing them, that looks to me like it’s harassment against the law firm for taking the case.

2

AdUpstairs7106 t1_j5zv480 wrote

So remember that lawyer who was denied entry filed a lawsuit against MSG liquor license not against them.

1

EruantienAduialdraug t1_j5xpi75 wrote

An example of what's been happening; multi-state law firm takes on a NY state based client that has complaint against MSG, MSG goes to said firm's website and puts everyone's photo into the banned list, employee who can't practice law in NY state is ejected without refund from the venue (along witwithh their family) for the audacity of having a job.

8

SailorET t1_j5xosom wrote

The person in question wasn't involved in any case against MSG.

It's like refusing to serve coffee to the salvation army bell ringers because you disagree with salvation army's LGBTQ policies. That person has nothing to do with that policy and there's no reason to get personal about it.

2

thirdegree t1_j5yxxw5 wrote

The lawyers aren't the ones suing, they're representing the ones suing. And no, you shouldn't be allowed to bar people for that.

Otherwise you have a situation where a giant corporation is able to use it's power to prevent people it has wrong from even getting legal representation in the first place, which is fucked.

1