On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote: > On 11 July 2013 05:13, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I CfJ on "Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of > a legally binding agreement between myself > and omd cause a violation of Rule 101?" > > > When you say 'legally binding', are you referring to Agoran, or US law (or > the law of some other jurisdiction external to > Agora)? > > With respect to Agoran law, I think omd would have a good case that such an > agreement could not succeed in binding him to its > terms, unless it was effected by an instrument with Power > 3. That is, I > think R101(v) (or even R101(ii)) would protect omd > from incurring any Agoran penalties for violating the terms of the agreement. > In this I may differ from Goethe, who seems to > think it might depend on how severe the penalties were.
There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal to mislead in certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, you think? As an complete aside, the Right was first and foremost meant to forbid technical tricks involving email, bans, distributor malfeasance, etc., since if you can't count on that, you can't count on much. Not to say it's limited to that as written.
