On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 02:57:07 +0000 (UTC), bill.jacobs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill Jacobs) wrote:
>Interesting post. I find the methods described here to be very
reasonable.
>Although the requirements of natural justice aren't fulfilled, as long as
>the "cheater's" name isn't publicized in any way, it wouldn't seem to
>matter.
>
>A commercial organization has the right to refuse customers.
In this connection there is a thoroughly amusing case, Hooks vs
OKBridge, of the only-in-America type:
Hooks apparenly behaved like a lunatic and was, therefore, banned by
OKB. He then sued OKB on the grounds that his behavior was due to a
disability, i.e. that he was, in fact, a lunatic.
The case was of interest because the question whether an internet site
is a "place of public accommodation" in the sense of the ADA laws was
at issue.
The court avoided taking a stand and dismissed on the grounds that OKB
was unaware of Hooks' disability, i.e. that OKB, having banned the man
for lunatic behavior, was unaware of his lunacy.
> As an example,
>if a shopkeeper caught someone shoplifting, then it would be reasonable
to
>turf them out of the shop and not let them back in the future.
>
>I wonder what Bridge Base Online does here?
>
>Cheers ... Bill
|
