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
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?