On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Dewald Pretorius<dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andy,
> One would hope that a judge would not even hear a case that said,
> "Defendent violated terms that he had no way of knowing exactly when
> and how he violated those terms."
> Suspending accounts based on what is a nebulous concept to the public
> is one thing. Even though it may not be good PR, it is well within
> someone's rights to do so. But, to take legal action based on it is
> probably, or shall I say hopefully, a bit of a stretch of the
> imagination. There is a good reason why law books and contracts are so
> thick and contain so many definitions, namely, so you can know exactly
> when you have broken the law or broken the terms of the contract.
> Dewald

And if a judge refused to hear the case, that's also setting some
precedent, and forces Twitter to provide clearer terms if they expect
to pursue similar matters in the future.

∞ Andy Badera
∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=(andrew+badera)+OR+(andy+badera)

Reply via email to