Heated Exchange Over a $250 Restaurant Cancellation Fee (Boston: home, price)

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by lrfox

There are numerous rulings along those lines. I remember this one from Rhode Island in the news several years ago ("The high court ruled that a person does not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy on text messages sent to another person’s phone.").

Apples and pomegranates. Not even remotely relevant to the situation we're discussing.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Apples and pomegranates. Not even remotely relevant to the situation we're discussing.

What "Discussion?" You're calling other posters wrong and telling them to go talk to a lawyer when they cast doubt on any of your unsupported statements.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by lrfox

There are numerous rulings along those lines. I remember this one from Rhode Island in the news several years ago ("The high court ruled that a person does not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy on text messages sent to another person’s phone.").

That situation is about allowing private messages to be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial.

This is about an individual publicly posting private messages in an effort to cause harm.

Very, very different.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by redplum33

That situation is about allowing private messages to be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial.

This is about an individual publicly posting private messages in an effort to cause harm.

Very, very different.

You have no problem posting dozens of links of crime news or Google views where you express condemnation about neighborhoods because brown people are seen in the images, but can't muster up any links to support this argument? Interesting. Read Palmieri v United States and feel free to post whatever relevant case law you believe supports your position. Sitting on here talking out of your rump and telling everyone else they're "wrong" means nothing. It just exposes you as a $hit talker.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

You have no problem posting dozens of links of crime news or Google views where you express condemnation about neighborhoods because brown people are seen in the images, but can't muster up any links to support this argument? Interesting. Read Palmieri v United States and feel free to post whatever relevant case law you believe supports your position. Sitting on here talking out of your rump and telling everyone else they're "wrong" means nothing. It just exposes you as a $hit talker.

Again, I would suggest that you contact a lawyer and ask them to explain it to you.

I have no interest in going back and forth with a know-it-all who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by redplum33

I have no interest in going back and forth with a know-it-all who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

You really lack self awareness.

[msRB311]

it's just become clear that many business are all about themselves. Maybe covid had something to do with it but more and more restaurants (and other service driven businesses) seem to care less about the customer these days. And the customer is basically the most important piece of their business.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by redplum33

That situation is about allowing private messages to be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial.

This is about an individual publicly posting private messages in an effort to cause harm.

Very, very different.

First, I'm not saying the "situations" are the same. But it is an example of a high court ruling that a person does not retain a right to privacy on messages sent to another person's phone. How many examples have you shown to support your claim?

Second, you're assuming that the messages were posted in "an effort to cause harm." Even in a civil suit, that's a very hard case to make. The messages were from the restaurant's official account, not an individuals. They were sent by a person who identified herself as the owner of the business who was speaking to him about a business transaction. He could easily argue that he made the messages public to raise awareness about the business's practices to other customers. She'd have a hard time making a convincing argument otherwise.

And finally, she initiated the message and was combative from the start and she continued to message him aggressively even after the messages were public and had gone viral. I sincerely doubt that any court would find in her favor.

[msRB311]

IT doesn't matter what is or isn't allowed in a court of law. The point is that people post messages and videos of people's bad behavior all the time on the internet and there's nothing that can change that. The bad behavior is revealed.

[Axxlrod]

Dude was in the hospital.

The restaurant owner sucks.

/thread.