Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LucyRiversinker t1_j60u4d2 wrote

Reply to comment by aphasial in NY AG wants answers on Madison Square Garden's use of facial recognition against legal opponents by Sorin61

I wouldn’t have a problem with your reasoning if the plaintiffs were barred from entering the premises. I certainly wouldn’t work for you if you sued me. But the lawyers are doing their job. Yes, the people at MSG have a right because lawyers and employees are not a protected class. But they are the wrong target, if MSG wants to hurt its “enemies.” So we are not arguing the legality itself, but the consequences of this sort of attitude. I hate the slippery-slope fallacy, bit when does it end? Want to ban the lawyer of record? Ok. She or he directly benefits from the success of the lawsuit. The paralegal. O….k? The secretary? I am not so sure. IT department? The mailroom staff? Office maintenance staff? The cleaners? When is revenge enough?

1

aphasial t1_j60vol2 wrote

I mean, I agree that there's plenty to talk about here when it comes to whether this is a good idea, or fair.

But plenty of people in this and similar threads are arguing around legality and rights of entry. And while that NY liquor law is interesting, I get the impression most of those arguing as such are simply suffering from the collective, seemingly-generation-wide illusion that discrimination not involving protected classes is somehow illegal.

2

LucyRiversinker t1_j60y7js wrote

Agreed. Nobody is per se entitled to attend an event at MSG, or have a Twitter account, or have their own tv station carried by DirectTV (NewsMax is being dropped). This is just stupid vindictive. There is no benefit to MSG.

2