It's just a ruling against an injunction that would have barred resolving the deplatforming dispute through arbitration.
It has no precendtial value. It has no probative value. It says nothing about how the underlying dispute will be resolved.
It should be seen as just one of many examples of the courts binding companies to the arbitration procedures companies included in their customer contracts in their attempts to avoid court.
Patrons in patreon do not have a direct contractual relationship with the projects they sponsor, so there can be no tortious interference of contact.
The cases are simply a gambit that patreon will settle and let these racists back on the platform rather than pay the costs of arbitration.
But given that Patreon was clearly and obviously a man-in-the-middle of the relationship and had policies which could be violated and which would terminate the relationship, and all parties knew this up front, then it is also clear to me that Patreon can freely choose to stop being a man-in-the-middle, and as such I don't think the tortious interference claim makes sense in this case.
If the followers wanted to have a contractual arrangement with Owen, they were free to do so outside of the bounds of Patreon (including, but not limited to direct donations, Paypal transactions, or Stipe payments), forgoing the controls and protections Patreon offers to patrons. The followers chose not to do so, ergo, it's clear that they did not intend to contract with Owens directly.
However, if you look into the history of government censorship in the US, you'll quickly find a lot more concerning things to worry about than merely the violation of ideals.
And then you have what I hope is merely a vocal minority that acts so quickly to cudgel their opponents with political correctness that they'll happily label jews "anti-semites" - despite a clear lack of self loathing - for entirely reasonable disagreements on foriegn policy and other politics. Do you trust that vocal minority to not abuse the courts, given half a chance? I don't.
Anyway I think the article is misleading. This only worked because Patreon's TOS used to allow it. They've since changed the TOS https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-ben... and this wouldn't apply to any other company unless they had a similar oversight.
No, not quite. The question as adjudicated is whether a company that mandates a fairly specific arbitration process as a condition of using that company's services can unilaterally change the terms after becoming aware of imminent legal action being taken under those terms, whether significant fees that constitute a liability for the company are "irreparable harm" and then whether the courts or arbitrators are the ones who decide jurisdiction issues.
Anyone can take any legal action they like if they file the paperwork properly and pay the fees, but have no guarantees of success.
Also, I'm not sure Patreon's changes are actually enforceable (though I doubt any sane lawyer would want to test that before prevailing on a tortuous interference claim). Specifically, I doubt Patreon can require consumers to pay legal fees for arbitration beyond what CA law provides. I'm also not sure whether Patreon can carve out this exception to tortious interference actions this way, though a contract could in principle waive certain legal rights like the ability to sue over torts. Regardless, I think it's likely that anyone demanding individual arbitration's in CA could be liable whether or not they erred to the degree Patreon did.
You must not be in America, then, since I assure you antisemitism is not illegal in America. When it crosses the line from thoughts or expressions and into acts rather is when it runs afoul of the law/society.
And the point of this case seems to me to be that if a company wants to provide a platform that is separate from toxicity, then it needs to be legally careful or it needs to be willing to pay up if it runs afoul of the law.
I'd love to ban Nazis and hate speech...but I don't trust many people to decide where that line should be drawn.
Seeing as he also spreads misinformation on AIDS and Coronavirus not even being real, one can only hope he suferrs a horrifying fate of both at the same time.
1. The cases are still going to Arbitration. The only victory here, is that Patreon has to abide by its own TOS (at the time of the dispute).
2. It's not clear to me to what extent arbitration creates precedents.
3. In the very worst case, Twitter could just not remove people from its platform. There are all sorts of other things Twitter could do that would have nearly the same effect without the legal risk (e.g. shadowban someone from the rest of twitter except their current subscribers).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301 (33 comments)