Tough, but that's business
Tough, but that's business
Posted Oct 24, 2024 16:21 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)In reply to: Tough, but that's business by pizza
Parent article: WordPress retaliation impacts community
> Meanwhile, a "promise" is not a legally binding contract.
Well. Not in general, no. But in this case?
In the Real World, if you have allowed people for *years* to, say, freely cross your property in order to get from A to B, suddenly erecting a roadblock is legally questionable, esp. if the roadblock only applies to people with green eyes.
Also in this case (blocking access to a service, not a road) there's an implied promise of No Roadblocks, which can be inferred from the fact that the property in question belongs to a tax-exempt entity that's been created with the explicit purpose of providing said access.
Posted Oct 24, 2024 16:53 UTC (Thu)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
In this case? Still no.
> In the Real World, if you have allowed people for *years* to, say, freely cross your property in order to get from A to B, suddenly erecting a roadblock is legally questionable,
Unless there is an "public right of way" on said property, still no. This can be explicit (ie listed on the deed) or implicit (due to some law that requires it). Neither applies in this case.
> Also in this case (blocking access to a service, not a road) there's an implied promise of No Roadblocks,
No such promise existed. Again, they are not obligated to provide these services to the public at large, or anybody they choose to not associate with [1] [2].
> which can be inferred from the fact that the property in question belongs to a tax-exempt entity that's been created with the explicit purpose of providing said access.
Except... that's not the case here. But even if it was, that still doesn't mean they are legally obligated to provide access to everyone, for free, in perpetuity.
Mind you, I'm not saying that Mullenweg's actions are necessarily _wise_, but legally speaking, it is his [near-]absolute legal right to do so.
[1] Except where law demands -- eg if providing a service to the public as a whole, one can't deny service based on race, gender, and a handful of other legally protected classes. Eye color is not one of them.
Tough, but that's business
> Well. Not in general, no. But in this case?
[2] I routinely block large swaths of the internet from accessing my internet-facing servers/services. I've also removed/blocked individual accounts numerous times. Should I not be allowed to do this?