Tuesday, 28 June 2011 - The NINTH AMENDMENT REMINDS READERS IT CONDEMNS THE UNLIMITED READING OF THE NEW YORK TIMES DIGITAL EDITION SIMPLY BY SETTING ONE'S FIREFOX BROWSER TO "PRIVATE BROWSING".
If readers really wish to see the work of lawyers who still are enamored with a love of generating high fees by conjuring up the pointless legalese, run-on sentences and other ridiculous rambling unenforceable small-print legal mumbo-jumbo, just have a laugh comparing the "requirements" one must agree to before even commenting on Washington Post articles, etc. with the minimal requirements one must sign off on before commenting on a New York Times piece.
If the Washington Post "Terms and Conditions" necessary to "agree to" simply to make a comment were actually enforceable as drafted by third-rate attorneys in fantasyland, commenters would find themselves indemnifying the Washington Post for legal fees all the way up through United States Supreme Court proceedings in which the Post has found itself, such as, say, the Pentagon Papers. Does the Post really worry that public comments published with a full disclaimer in a digital edition will be mistaken by a Court for the "Official Words" of the venerable Washington Post?
Coypright 2011 Big M and Little L All World Rights Expressly Reserved
If readers really wish to see the work of lawyers who still are enamored with a love of generating high fees by conjuring up the pointless legalese, run-on sentences and other ridiculous rambling unenforceable small-print legal mumbo-jumbo, just have a laugh comparing the "requirements" one must agree to before even commenting on Washington Post articles, etc. with the minimal requirements one must sign off on before commenting on a New York Times piece.
If the Washington Post "Terms and Conditions" necessary to "agree to" simply to make a comment were actually enforceable as drafted by third-rate attorneys in fantasyland, commenters would find themselves indemnifying the Washington Post for legal fees all the way up through United States Supreme Court proceedings in which the Post has found itself, such as, say, the Pentagon Papers. Does the Post really worry that public comments published with a full disclaimer in a digital edition will be mistaken by a Court for the "Official Words" of the venerable Washington Post?
Coypright 2011 Big M and Little L All World Rights Expressly Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment