Anonymous ID: 480dd7 Sept. 13, 2018, 8:29 a.m. No.3006498   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6578 >>6590

>>3006441

Is this apply to Reddit?

 

The Legal Rights of a Business to Ban a Person From Their Property

by Kay Bosworth; Updated June 26, 2018

 

A customer enters a fast-food establishment barefooted even though the sign says,“No shirt, no shoes, no service.” At the other extreme, a fired employee tries to enter his former office, threatening to get even with his ex-boss. These and similar situations can test the civil rights of individuals against the rights of property owners.

Civil Rights

 

There were times in United States history when restaurants and other businesses refused admittance to people because of their race or national origin. To do so now would violate the federal Civil Rights Act that guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." Those protections cover such private places as restaurants, hotels and motels, movie houses, theaters and sports arenas. Other protected classes include people with disabilities.

Property Owners' Rights

 

Private property is any property owned by private persons and not by the government or reserved for public use. Private property includes buildings and real estate as well as objects and intellectual property. People who own property have the right to manage it and control it. A store, for example, is private property. Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

Violations of a Ban

 

State statutes describe “defiant trespass” as someone entering or staying in a place where he has been told not to enter or has been ordered to leave. The charge also applies when a person enters property where signs or fencing are designed to keep out intruders. A property owner can tell the individual in person, preferably with a witness, that he is banned, or notify him by certified letter with a copy sent to the local police department. Violating the banning order could result in a disorderly persons charge.

Rules and Policies

 

Businesses are within their rights to establish their own rules for admitting or banning people from the property. A company can protect an employee by banning an abusive ex-spouse or stalker from the workplace. The owner of a bar can forbid an obviously drunken or unruly patron from entering. Casino management can identify and ban a card-counter or a known cheater. In any such case where an individual is prevented from entering the property, the prohibition cannot be based on any of the classes protected by federal laws.

References (5)

 

Legal Information Institute: Prohibition Against Discrimination or Segregation in Places of Public Accommodation

USLegal: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation

Legal Information Institute: Private Property

TalkingRetail: Ban Someone From Your Store: Talking Retail’s How to Guide

PALawhelp.org: How to Keep Someone Off Your Property

 

About the Author

 

As a long-time newspaper reporter and staff writer, Kay Bosworth covered real estate development and business for publications in northern New Jersey. Her extensive career included serving as editor of a business education magazine for the McGraw-Hill Book Company. The Kentucky native earned a BA from Transylvania University in Lexington.

 

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/legal-rights-business-ban-person-property-65571.html

Anonymous ID: 480dd7 Sept. 13, 2018, 8:47 a.m. No.3006703   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6710

>>3006578

>Section 230 of the CDA

Thanks.

 

Unless the Congress do something, I assume it is going to be a long fight? Reddit said "banned for inciting violence". That's right of private company. I guess the freedom of expression is something to argue about. Interesting how all these will play out.

Anonymous ID: 480dd7 Sept. 13, 2018, 8:53 a.m. No.3006768   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6779

>>3006710

Amen to that or something else. I am not into making more laws. Monopoly is the problem. Let consumers decide, but we have no other options if we only have one choice pick from. Either way, it is going to be a tough ride.