As a Millennial I posted:

I don't think I've ever seen a group as maligned and libeled as Fatpeoplehate by reddit as a corporation, and the evidence is right there in front of anyone's face.

As a Millennial I posted:

I've been following the "Fattening" developments closely since it happened, and I'm certain you'll be hearing a lot more about the legal aspects of the matter in the coming weeks.

Sadly, I don't think people denied posting status can be considered a "protected class," so I doubt this will go anywhere.

But this is not to say there are no avenues to pursue here.

There are several different kinds of cases possible when it comes to a situation like this. Here's a breakdown of the legal avenues that could be pursued, as I see it. (Obviously, this is informational, and none of the below constitutes legal advice!)

FRAUD

Fraud proceedings against Reddit and Ellen Pao herself (as an accessory) seem inevitable to me.

As should be obvious, profiting from a website you've said is in favor of free speech and then banning that speech is a clear example of financial advantage by deception, and if there isn't a law firm already working on a case this strong, I would be very surprised.

Just a prediction of how the case might go: The brunt of the legal burden will probably be borne by Reddit itself. The corporation facilitated the fraud, and it has no doubt been brought to their attention by now, so by not reinstating the banned subs, they are knowingly allowing the use of their site for fraudulent activities.

By making false promises to users (IE: "Your ideas will not be censored") and then profiting from selling ad space based on their traffic numbers, they've opened themselves to some potentially large judgements.. That's the avenue I would personally pursue, as Reddit likely has much deeper pockets than Pao herself...and we lawyers gotta go for the money!

The potential for punitive damages in a case like this is huge.

ANTITRUST

This is my personal area of practice, so this is where I'm most certain.

I can't say too much about the specific case my firm may (or may not) be working on when it comes to FatPeopleHate and bans on reddit, but in broad strokes, it doesn't take a genius to see how anti-trust laws are being ignored wholesale by this website.

They call themselves "The Front Page of the Internet," and due to its traffic numbers, Reddit essentially holds a monopoly on a certain kind of discourse. To not allow other kinds of discourse it to essentially profit from your monopoly status by making competition impossible. Anyone with a background in anti-trust and collusion law could look at the relevant legislation and caselaw and deduce what avenues we would likely be pursuing.

LIBEL AND DEFAMATION

I don't think I've ever seen a group as maligned and libeled as Fatpeoplehate by reddit as a corporation, and the evidence is right there in front of anyone's face.

While membership in a subreddit isn't a legally protected class in the US, that doesn't mean there's no protection at all. In broad terms, if "print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form" is injurious to a person's reputation, "exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession," there's a case.

It should be obvious how FPH and its members have been defamed. The only thing to do now is to seek redress. I wonder if any of you have been contacted about participating in a class action lawsuit of this nature?

As I said, my firm mainly deals with antitrust and cross border merger cases, but I'd be curious to hear from anyone pursuing (or planning to pursue) any of the other legal aspects of this matter.

quote:

Sadly, I don't think people denied posting status can be considered a "protected class," so I doubt this will go anywhere.

NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:

here's another good subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/

quote:

I am a US citizen, currently residing in the US. The job is located in London in the UK.

It’s possible I’m looking more for life advice than legal advice, so please feel free to point me to a more appropriate sub, I just thought you guys might have some good suggestions on how to approach this situation/how to negotiate to minimize how screwed I am.

I accepted a job at a large company in the UK in Oct 2014 right after I completed a Masters program in London. (I’m from the US and do not hold any sort of dual citizenship.) My UK student visa expired Jan 2015 but I was given a start date of Sept 2015 (the next intake for the graduate scheme program). Over the past year I’ve been planning/preparing to move back to the UK and take this job, including declining other opportunities (which, of course, was my choice) as I love the UK and really want to move back there. About a week ago the company contacts me that my visa application will most likely not be approved due to the current political climate. Apparently, if my student visa was still valid it wouldn’t be a problem, but since it has since expired (something I did bring up with them during the hiring process), the process is much stricter.

My understanding based on speaking with them as well as doing some research on my own, is that there is a newly(?) implemented quota on how many work visas can be granted to non-EU people. It is based on a points system based on salary and other criteria, and given that I would be starting essentially at the entry level, I most likely will be refused. The company has told me this is a brand new thing, but in my research it looks like the relevant law was passed in 2011. However, I haven’t yet been able to find exactly when it actually took effect. Of course the contracts I signed a year ago says they are not liable if the immigration laws change. But it seems to me that if the law was passed in 2011, it’s at least something they should have known about/anticipated.

Visas are granted on a monthly basis so they have said that they will submit an application in July and in August. I did ask what happens after August if no visa is granted and they didn’t have any answer. I’m just a bit frustrated because 1. I did have a valid student visa and I would have been available to start any time between accepting the job and the visa expiring in Jan 2015, but I get that in a big company they prefer to do intakes of graduates once a year, and 2. I’m just a big stunned that the company is acting like they’re only suddenly realizing the visa will most likely not be approved. If this law was passed in 2011 it seems like something they should have been aware of. And I accepted the job nearly a year ago, even if they had told me this six months ago, I would have been in a better position to make other plans for my life. Before they contacted me about this issue, I had already spent over $1000 on plane tickets and preparations to find housing. I started closing various US accounts and generally preparing to move. I just feel like this is a significant professional and personal setback and I’m standing here with my dick in my hand and no idea of what to do next.

I have already started applying to US jobs in the past few days and scrambling to make a plan B for my life, but I’d love some advice on how to approach dealing with the company on this situation. They said they should get back to me sometime this week on whether the visa application was approved or not. While getting approved and moving to the UK would be my ideal situation, I’m assuming at this point there is virtually no chance of that happening. Should I let the company know how I feel like they really dropped the ball on this? I’m in the process of re-reading my contract carefully, but I’m guessing they’ve covered themselves against any legal action. Should I push for them to try to find me a place in a US office? Is there any possible legal action I could take? Even just to recoup what I already spent on the plane ticket? Would that even be possible/worth it?

Thank you for your input!

Tl;dr: I am a US citizen and I accepted a job in the UK in Oct 2014 while studying there, with an intended start date of Sept 2015. The company contacted me a week ago that I will most likely not be able to get a UK work visa. Is there any recourse I might have with the company to minimize how screwed I am after waiting for this job for a year and now facing unemployment?

quote:

I can't believe this is what finally got me to register for a reddit account.
The whole situation is so ridiculous that I'm wondering if it's some sort of elaborate prank, but alas I doubt it.
So three years ago I bought a condo. I love it, and have had no problems with the association until now.
When I bought the condo, there was a clause in the rules that pets were not allowed, and that you would be fined daily if you had one. This was fine by me, as I did not have a pet, nor did I plan on getting one.
The association also has a policy that once a year they inspect all the units, to make sure that everyone is adhering to all the condo rules. Again, no problem, because I obey all the rules.
Anyway, the inspections happened in mid-December. Shortly before January 1st, I sent in my condo fee check.
A few days ago I recieved a message indicating I was being charged a $40 late fee for not paying all of the condo fee. The invoice showed I had paid X (where X was the regular montly fee), while I had owed X+100. Now I need to pay $140 or run into more late fees.
I called the main office to find out why the fee was $100 higher, and they indicated that it was a $100 fine for having a cat.
But here's the thing - I don't have a cat.
The property manager told me that his notes indicated that on the day of my condo's inspection, when the inspectors opened my door, a cat ran out and ran into the woods behind the unit.
I told him I didn't have a cat - perhaps the inspector was mistaken? No, I was told. There were three people there (the property manager, a contractor, and a member of the board), and they are all in agreement that there was a cat.
I asked if it was possible this info had been written in the notes of the wrong unit, but the rest of the info matched up with my unit (brand of the toilet (making sure it was low-flow), brand and installation date of the water heater, etc).
I politely but firmly said that I have never owned a cat. I asked if they had seen any other evidence of a cat in my unit - a water bowl, cat toys, etc - the response was that "no such note was made in my file."
I was then told that I had to pay the $100 fee (plus the $40 late fee) or I would be in violation of my contract with the association.
I tried to figure out if somehow a feral cat had gotten into my condo - somewhat impossible, due to my being on the third floor, and the fact that it was the middle of winter so all the windows were closed and locked.
So I'm fairly certain, perhaps 99.7% certain, that there has never been a cat in my condo.
0.3% of me thinks I've gone mad.
But it's my word against the word of these three other people, and was pretty much told I'm SOL.
But the whole situation is awfully weird.
First of all, suppose I did have a cat (which I most decidedly did/do not!). From their perspective, they let my cat run away, and they just go a month without saying anything?
Second of all, they say it ran into the woods. I'm on the third floor of the building. There's a door leading into the hallway, a fire door leading to the stairwell, then another door leading outside. This magical ninja cat made it through all these doors, and then, from the third floor, the inspectors saw it run into the woods?
The whole thing is so bizzare that even typing it out makes me feel like a crazy person.
So I guess the question is: is there anything I can do to avoid paying this fee? I've pretty much decided to not pay it on principal.
But how am I supposed to prove a negative? It's easy to prove that there IS a cat, but pretty damned impossible to prove there ISN'T a cat.
I mean, I could show my bank statements, and a complete lack of charges to vets, pet stores, or website such as ilovecats.com. I could get written statements from friends who have visited, lamenting the sore lack of anything remotely feline. But would any of this convince the condo folks?
Any fines are considered to be part of the actual condo fee, so by not paying it, I am not paying my condo fees, which is no bueno. I'm currently out of town, so I don't have a copy of my contract. I'd assume they can't kick me out because I own the place. I guess they'd they'd either eventually send it to collections, or maybe small claims?
Any advice would be greatly appriciated.
TL;DR: Being fined fo a cat that I'm pretty sure never existed. What do?
Edit: I'm in New Jersey.

As a Millennial I posted:

i hope the catte is okay :worried:

As a Millennial I posted:

e: i meant

As a Millennial I posted:

e: poo poo

As a Millennial I posted:

They call themselves "The Front Page of the Internet," and due to its traffic numbers, Reddit essentially holds a monopoly on a certain kind of discourse. To not allow other kinds of discourse it to essentially profit from your monopoly status by making competition impossible.

ultramiraculous posted:

lol what

i was reloading posted:

reddit = gently caress

bobbilljim posted:

As a Millennial I posted:

In broad terms, if "print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form" is injurious to a person's reputation, "exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession," there's a case.

Jonad posted:

ok voted 1 where's my doot

quote:

None of my children are vaccinated. Totally by accident I came to find out that my oldest daughter has been fully vaccinated (Tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, hep a and b, menengitis a and b and hpv) without mine or my husband's knowledge or consent. In Ontario we have socialized medicine and publicly funded vaccines. She admitted she went to clinics run for school aged children run by our local health public health unit to get her shots and also got a few at a local walk in clinic that are not yet publicly funded paid for with her babysitting money. When I called public health and the clinic to complain they both said that because she is age 16 they cannot release any information to me - and I'm her mother! My husband and are livid that she was vaccinated without our consent. What kind of action can we take against public health and the clinic for vaccinating a child without parental consent? Do we have a case for a lawsuit?

quote:

Please reconsider your decision not to vaccinate your children. Regardless,
"Ontario is different from many other provinces in that it affords children complete control over their own health-care decisions unless they are deemed incapable by a physician."
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/gta/2015/01/20/ontario-law-allows-children-to-determine-medical-care.html
So you, despite being your daughters mother, cannot stop her from getting treatment against her will.

EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:

whoa my province owns

this is a way funnier equivalent to when you become an accountant to spite your rock star father

As a Millennial I posted:

i saw a dead catte on /r/subredditsimulator. it's bad now.

EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:

whoa my province owns

this is a way funnier equivalent to when you become an accountant to spite your rock star father

Cold on a Cob posted:

sure it owns when the child is choosing proper health care to spite a lovely religious parent but what about the opposite?

A Yolo Wizard posted:

scroll down dummy http://imgur.com/gallery/nBssK

EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:

Then the doctor declares them incompetent and does it anyways?

duTrieux. posted:

sweet

california just passed a law stripping the religious exemption from people who want to send their kids to public school.

Cold on a Cob posted:

did you even read the article about how that little girl chose the stebe cancer treatment regime over poo poo that might have actually saved her life?

THC posted:

canada has a slightly embarrassing history of doing unpleasant medical things to aboriginal children without their consent or their parents'

it was a sticky situation politically and legally