30% jokes, 30% attempts at academic discussions, 40% spewing my opinions uninvited to find out what might be missing from my perspective.

I’ll usually reiterate this in my posts, but I never give legal advice online. I can describe how the law generally tends to be, analyze a public case from an academic perspective, and explain how courts normally treat an issue. But hell no am I even going to try to apply the law to your specific situation.

  • 0 Posts
  • 2 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • I hate to talk like a law student but that’s sort of the system we already have. When a person certifies that they have read a contract (such as terms and conditions), it does actually mean something. No one would want to do business if anyone could be released from a contract just because they were lying about whether they agreed to be bound by it.

    You might be able to think of it like the safety presentation that happens before takeoff on every commercial flight in the US. If you look around at that time, very few people are ever paying attention to the video or flight attendant. Why is that, if everyone is supposed to be concerned about their own safety? Maybe they think this presentation will be the same as all the others, so they can safely ignore it. Does that make it the airline’s fault if a person doesn’t know where the emergency exits are when something does happen? No, the typical intuition - and a relatively necessary assumption on the airline’s part - is that each person is responsible for knowing the information given to them in that presentation.

    Similarly, it does not necessarily change much if a person has to check off multiple boxes instead of just one, or if they have to wait a few minutes before they can sign off, etc. People will tune out whatever they want to tune out, but we can’t have a workable system if that’s what absolves them of responsibility.

    --That being said, US contract law does take this to some extremes that should be carved out as unacceptable exceptions to the rule. The case of Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute comes to mind where passengers were bound by terms printed on the back of a cruise ticket that they only received after they already paid for it.


  • Agreeing with priapus, no idea what OP is on about but the one here is in really poor taste. Saying generalized statements and trying to describe an entire community as if your experiences are universal, especially trying to paint the entire community in a negative light, is uneducated and weird.

    It would be like saying, “I feel like men are dangerous and creepy. They seem to go out of their way to get offended when we tell them we don’t want to talk to them. Like, I’m sorry some people in the country have made them feel like they need female attention, but they’re hurting their own cause by insisting that they deserve sex all the time.”

    Maybe it’s true about a subset of the group, and that’s probably the subset you will see if you are exclusively browsing hateful content all the time. But a few real life conversations with real life people will show that those statements are barely accurate at all for the majority of them.

    A more appropriate way to express themselves would have been centered on their own experiences - “I feel like I have to be careful expressing my views on trans people because I see people getting offended over innocuous questions,” etc etc. Very very different tone.