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)
