Late Stage Capitalism

5615 readers

1 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml

Magpieinthesky@lemmygrad.ml

Disney argues it was legal to kill a doctor because she had a Disney+ trial once (wdwnt.com)

submitted 3 months ago by RedWizard@hexbear.net to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmygrad.ml

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Holy shit, the absolute depravity of it

Lawyers have no morals. It's a fucking game to them. Who can be the most clever, ha, look at this clause, we've got them now! Never stopping to reflect on what they're actually doing.

Mandatory reeducation for lawyers after the revolution. Except public defenders y'all are cool

[–] Munrock@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 3 months ago

"You activated my trap clause."

[–] trashxeos@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 months ago

Make the lawyers from 5-4 Podcast head it up. They do a pretty good job analyzing Supreme Court decisions (especially the bad ones, which tends to be their bread and butter).

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 3 months ago

Not even the doctor. Their claim is the widower had a subscription. And it was not really a subscription either. Just a month-long free trial.

Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 months ago

it's a magical place, if you have in mind that dark magic is magic too

[+] AmidFuror@fedia.io -14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is Disney arguing this should go to binding arbitration and that they are not at fault for the death, or are they arguing that it is legal for them to kill people whose families had Disney+ trials?

It's fine to have your own strong opinion on this case, but you can't have your own facts.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Law. Arbitration. Judges. Contracts.

You're not in the land of facts. You're in the realm of paper reality, an artificial universe made up entirely by humans. The only facts you have here are what the ink on the paper says and a historical record of specific actions taken out of context.

What is the fundamental difference between a Disney operation causing the death of someone through negligence and going to private arbitration run by corporate partners and a Disney operation murdering someone and not being held to account by the law we created to punish murderers?

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Is it likely that there will be legal consequences for Disney if it went to arbitration? I'm guessing if they're pushing for arbitration, they probably know it means they'll get away with it - so granting arbitration is essentially the same as legally sanctioning their actions or negligence.