To: cdcdawg; the_Watchman
I don’t blame my FRiends here from being confused on the issue of standing, because the issue is the tool of choice for corrupt courts to bounce legal actions they don’t like. All it means is that a party has an actual legal interest in the subject matter of the dispute at hand. Plainly Parler has standing to sue on its own contract. My concern is that the user agreement probably has pretty broad clauses allowing Amazon to do what it has done.
51 posted on
01/11/2021 10:04:39 AM PST by
j.havenfarm
(20 years on Free Republic, 12/10/20! More than 3700 replies and still not shutting up!)
To: j.havenfarm
I think some of us are just being snarky on the standing issue. They will find a different way to dismiss Parler’s suit.
60 posted on
01/11/2021 10:09:20 AM PST by
cdcdawg
(Maybe people are legitimately pissed off, they’re sick of all of this, and they don’t care anymore.)
To: j.havenfarm
Could Parler argue dissimilar treatment/enforcement if Amazon uses the contractual language to defend booting Parler.
Other clients do far worse than what Amazon is alleging Parler did.
87 posted on
01/11/2021 10:27:41 AM PST by
mewzilla
(Break out the mustard seeds. )
To: j.havenfarm
My concern is that the user agreement probably has pretty broad clauses allowing Amazon to do what it has done.
That is the key. The contract probably has a "Heads I win, Tails you lose" clause where AMZ can dump you for any and every reason.
209 posted on
01/12/2021 10:08:24 AM PST by
redgolum
(If this culture today is civilization, I will be the barbarian )
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson