Got burnt today

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Paulanthony

In reality, I don't believe any disclaimer can be defined as normal.
A disclaimer is a statement and has one purpose. A refusal to accept responsibility of legal liability.

You want to talk about disclaimers... what do you guys think about this one?



"Ticket holders acknowledge and agree that the Yankees' ban on foul/abusive language and obscene/indecent clothing does not violate their right to free speech . . . In addition, ticket holders further acknowledge and agree that by entering Yankee Stadium, they . . . waive, to the fullest extent that they may legally and effectively do so, any objection they may now or hereafter have to such ban and the penalties that the Yankees may impose for any violation of the same."

I have no objection to the Yankees' desire to forbid foul or abusive language and obscene or indecent clothing at their games... but I do object to their making it into a free speech issue. What's wrong with just saying that foul language and obscene clothing will not be tolerated, and leave it at that?

Why do they have to make it a free speech issue?

(Scan from Yankees Magazine, an official publication of the New York Yankees.)

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

You want to talk about disclaimers... what do you guys think about this one?



"Ticket holders acknowledge and agree that the Yankees' ban on foul/abusive language and obscene/indecent clothing does not violate their right to free speech . . . In addition, ticket holders further acknowledge and agree that by entering Yankee Stadium, they . . . waive, to the fullest extent that they may legally and effectively do so, any objection they may now or hereafter have to such ban and the penalties that the Yankees may impose for any violation of the same."

I have no objection to the Yankees' desire to forbid foul or abusive language and obscene or indecent clothing at their games... but I do object to their making it into a free speech issue. What's wrong with just saying that foul language and obscene clothing will not be tolerated, and leave it at that?

Why do they have to make it a free speech issue?

(Scan from Yankees Magazine, an official publication of the New York Yankees.)

Because the bulk of the country is uneducated, and New Yorkers are predisposed to argue. So they figured "Why not take the first idiotic argument out of the equation?"

[Exhibitman]

No, it is because of a series of court rulings on free speech that grant certain speech and assembly rights in public spaces, like malls or the walks in front of grocery stores. The purpose of the waiver [it is not an exculpatory clause disclaiming liability but a contract clause waiving a right, so it is a waiver not a disclaimer] is to preclude a 1st Amendment argument that the stadium is a similar public space in which certain Constitutional rights might exist.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, it is because of a series of court rulings on free speech that grant certain speech and assembly rights in public spaces, like malls or the walks in front of grocery stores. The purpose of the waiver [it is not an exculpatory clause disclaiming liability but a contract clause waiving a right, so it is a waiver not a disclaimer] is to preclude a 1st Amendment argument that the stadium is a similar public space in which certain Constitutional rights might exist.

That's what I said.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Deertick

That's what I said.

Adam makes me all warm and fuzzy with that lawyer-talk. Man, I wish I could do that AND make sense at the same time. It'll never happen. I would be revising my post for 3 days before I hit the respond button AND would still screw it up.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, it is because of a series of court rulings on free speech that grant certain speech and assembly rights in public spaces, like malls or the walks in front of grocery stores. The purpose of the waiver [it is not an exculpatory clause disclaiming liability but a contract clause waiving a right, so it is a waiver not a disclaimer] is to preclude a 1st Amendment argument that the stadium is a similar public space in which certain Constitutional rights might exist.

That's almost the first thing I thought. My first thought was that the Yankees had been on the losing end of one of those decisions.

A friend of mine who works for a big firm as a librarian told me to consider that every time I saw a caution on a power tool or some other bit of equipment it meant that someone somewhere was dumb enough to actually do that and lived to sue and win. He's sent me links to info about some of the cases and I'm just amazed the stuff people actually have to be warned against. (Don't use the lawnmower as a hedge trimmer I think that's my favorite)

Steve B

[JimStinson]

I get that about the lawnmower makes sense ...but is it OK to use a hedgetrimmer for a haircut ???
___________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[JimStinson]

Did I just say Hedge trimmer ??? I'm sorry I meant to say hedge hog....although in comparing the two photos I think they qualify for a "seperated at birth" ...
________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[JimStinson]

.....I'm sure of it, twins seperated at birth
________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

(Don't use the lawnmower as a hedge trimmer I think that's my favorite)

Steve B

Like most everyone, I mowed lawns as a teenager. I once showed up at this woman's house and she wanted me to edge her lawn. So she gave me a weed-eater to do it with. It was a disaster and I ruined the tool. I'm glad she didn't have any other power-tools - I might have killed myself.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Deertick

and New Yorkers are predisposed to argue...

No we're NOT!!