1.2.1. disseminate material that is abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory,
harassing, grossly offensive, vulgar, threatening, or malicious;
1.2.2. aide or implement practices that violate or are intended to violate basic human
rights or civil liberties (for clarity, you may not use the Service Offerings to
assist in the creation of databases of identifying information for any government
to abrogate any human rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of individuals on the
basis of race, gender, gender expression or gender identity, sexual orientation,
religion, age, national origin or based on any protected classification under
applicable laws);
Law student pede, that's why I asked for the TOS. I think 1.2.1-2 is more akin to Title VII claims, like protected classes. So, for instance, a company cannot use mapbox to identify black or Hispanic people, women, handicapped people, etc. Political party is not protected under Title VII.
However, 1.2.4 is more promising: "operate a product or service where the use or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or significant property or environmental damage." With the riots and targeting of Trump supporters in public and at their homes, I think this is a better argument
(edit) I would preface the "better argument" statement by saying that someone needs to use the service to carry out some attack on a person or their property first. A claim in the abstract is no good in courts, unfortunately
No because 1.2.1 protects against misuse of the service against people in protected classes under Title VII. Title VII protects against disparate treatment on the basis of sex, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. Political parties are fair game under Title VII
Those were on two separate lines. You are talking about 1.2.2. 1.2.1 just states abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory etc etc but doesnt mention protected classes. I would see this as being harassing/defamatory/threatening right?
Ah my mistake, 1.2.2 is the Title VII protection. 1.2.1 might work if there is evidence of abuse or harassment stemming from the website.
I still think 1.2.4 is a better case though, because what qualifies as "abuse" or "harassment" is left up to the court. If you get a leftist judge, kiss that lawsuit goodbye. But, personal injury or property damage is far easier to prove to the extent that the suit can't be dismissed
Where are the TOS for mapbox?
The link i provided in the post. But here: https://assets.website-files.com/5d4296d7a839ea49599adba1/5f861dd342117731bb8f1e02_Mapbox%20Service%20Terms.pdf
1.2.1. disseminate material that is abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory, harassing, grossly offensive, vulgar, threatening, or malicious; 1.2.2. aide or implement practices that violate or are intended to violate basic human rights or civil liberties (for clarity, you may not use the Service Offerings to assist in the creation of databases of identifying information for any government to abrogate any human rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of individuals on the basis of race, gender, gender expression or gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin or based on any protected classification under applicable laws);
Law student pede, that's why I asked for the TOS. I think 1.2.1-2 is more akin to Title VII claims, like protected classes. So, for instance, a company cannot use mapbox to identify black or Hispanic people, women, handicapped people, etc. Political party is not protected under Title VII.
However, 1.2.4 is more promising: "operate a product or service where the use or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or significant property or environmental damage." With the riots and targeting of Trump supporters in public and at their homes, I think this is a better argument
(edit) I would preface the "better argument" statement by saying that someone needs to use the service to carry out some attack on a person or their property first. A claim in the abstract is no good in courts, unfortunately
Would 1.2.1 not fit that bill also?
No because 1.2.1 protects against misuse of the service against people in protected classes under Title VII. Title VII protects against disparate treatment on the basis of sex, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. Political parties are fair game under Title VII
Those were on two separate lines. You are talking about 1.2.2. 1.2.1 just states abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory etc etc but doesnt mention protected classes. I would see this as being harassing/defamatory/threatening right?
Ah my mistake, 1.2.2 is the Title VII protection. 1.2.1 might work if there is evidence of abuse or harassment stemming from the website.
I still think 1.2.4 is a better case though, because what qualifies as "abuse" or "harassment" is left up to the court. If you get a leftist judge, kiss that lawsuit goodbye. But, personal injury or property damage is far easier to prove to the extent that the suit can't be dismissed
So, we need something to go down before we can stop things from going down?
https://www.mapbox.com/legal/tos/
https://www.mapbox.com/contact/
Does it matter anymore now that we’ve flipped it into Trump Tinder?
I connected with over a dozen local pedes. I already invited them all to my election night party haha This has been a real game changer for us!
That's really cool. I bet if the people who run the site catch wind that we're using it for good, they'll take it down themselves.
Use their tools against them!!!
The website lists people based on the assertion they are 'supporting a racist' (and therefore are racists themselves)... Seems like slander to me.