Actually, the case is quite a strong one and relatively easy to prove. All the elements of the breach are made out on the face of things. A lot of good lawyers have looked at this and haven’t been able to find a major flaw or showstopper.
In any case, even if it were only a 1
In 100 chance that’s still a great free lottery ticket!
Because in my humble opinion you can not blame a company for not doing advertising for a certain industry... If we all want freedom of speech! Which is in my opinion the case, there is also the right to advertise freely. Which means, the right to reject certain ads... It works both ways, not?
Its pretty perverse to suggest that preventing speech by banning ads is an exercise of freedom of speech!
When companies have such a monopoly position they are restricting freedom of speech by preventing ads. When those ads are from competitors then its illegal anti-competitive behaviour.
I have often heard that freedom of speech does not extend to private spaces - which includes websites. E.g. You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to come into my house and say whatever you like.. In the sense that I can opt to eject you for whatever reason I choose. I guess you would know more about how the law operates in that regard than most people though, I am interested to hear your thoughts on that.
The issue is the terms of anti-trust and monopoly laws. As Andrew highlighted above, it appears that in law, breach of anti-monopoly law can be proven here and that is the point.
Actually, the case is quite a strong one and relatively easy to prove. All the elements of the breach are made out on the face of things. A lot of good lawyers have looked at this and haven’t been able to find a major flaw or showstopper.
In any case, even if it were only a 1
In 100 chance that’s still a great free lottery ticket!
Posted using Partiko iOS
Thanks for explaining. :)
Why do you say that?
Because in my humble opinion you can not blame a company for not doing advertising for a certain industry... If we all want freedom of speech! Which is in my opinion the case, there is also the right to advertise freely. Which means, the right to reject certain ads... It works both ways, not?
Its pretty perverse to suggest that preventing speech by banning ads is an exercise of freedom of speech!
When companies have such a monopoly position they are restricting freedom of speech by preventing ads. When those ads are from competitors then its illegal anti-competitive behaviour.
I have often heard that freedom of speech does not extend to private spaces - which includes websites. E.g. You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to come into my house and say whatever you like.. In the sense that I can opt to eject you for whatever reason I choose. I guess you would know more about how the law operates in that regard than most people though, I am interested to hear your thoughts on that.
The issue is the terms of anti-trust and monopoly laws. As Andrew highlighted above, it appears that in law, breach of anti-monopoly law can be proven here and that is the point.