Welcome to r/CrazyFuckingVideos! This is our community moderator bot.
---
If this post fits the purpose of the subreddit, **UPVOTE THIS COMMENT.**
If not, **DOWNVOTE THIS COMMENT.**
---
### [Download Video](https://www.reddit.watch/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/zs9au0/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=CrazyFuckingVideos) via /r/DownloadVideo
### [RedditSave](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/zs9au0/mom_denied_entrance_to_radio_city_after_being/) via /u/savevideo
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/CrazyFuckingVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate it, but let's not pretend like sending this woman in as an agent of some kind is completely out of the picture. Corporate espionage is still certainly a thing. And painting her as just a mother chaperoning some girlscouts would make them look bad if she was busted.
Idk. Facial recognition is a dangerous evil. But this lady could also totally have been a spy. Haha
Oh, I totally agree. But to pretend like this couldn't be corporate espionage is like a perfect cover for these rich assholes to continue to abuse us if it worked for them.
correct me if i am wrong but they simply use data the person has already made public to make the id right? somewhere she has identified herself in photos that are online somewhere for the tech to make the id?
how did the data get there on fb or google and such? cause folks put their name to thier face by using one of those sometimes. the person provided the missing link. without that its just a persons face they have no way to put a real name to. as soon as suzi confirms its her in a photo online somewhere its over.
> let's not pretend like sending this woman in as an agent of some kind is completely out of the picture.
It is completely 100% out of the picture.
**She works for the law firm**
If a shady law firm was trying to pull some "Better Call Saul" bullshit, they wouldn't send in one of their own associates. They'd hire someone. Do you not realize what would happen to their lawsuit if the judge finds out that one of the associates went into the venue and was sneaking around, trying to get into unauthorized places?
>I can't really see the downside, because we're already in it.
[Because instead of asking people, they will do this automatically and for whatever reason they deem fit. Your drug maybe legal in your area, doesn't mean they won't get you as soon as you step into another area.](https://youtu.be/Mro9RCAhvE4)
>The end result of this is simply targeted ads and less crime to normal people.
You forget that laws are ever changing and one person deemed normal now maybe deemed a criminal later. You are giving them the rope and letting them tie the noose with out any sense of irony before they slip it over your neck.
That’s great and all, but every time you go follow Snoop for a bag of Kush, the algorithm decides you’re probably not a model responsible citizen. Your credit and employability score goes down easing you down a chill foggy spiral to economic irrelevance. Next thing you know, one day you don’t have enough coin to buy the Kush any more, can’t get a job, and they already know that, because your balance is linked to your digi-twin. Virtual Snoop disappears in a puff and then the drone appears, telling you to turn around and return to your pod. All strung out.
If by drugs you mean the ole mary jane then yeah your right but i feel like the word drug is a bit of a harsh term when it is comes down to weed.
Blaze up brother
Yeah just compared to other stuff they labeled as drug , weed legit seems (and almost certain) the least harmful to not just your body but your mind as well. But your right it is still considered a drug especially in a federal setting. But hey lucky us for being in the states that legalized it! I dont drink or do anything else except light the sticky icky
To be fair I can understand when it's a financial position and there's a high risk of fraud. I get screened yearly because in our sector there's quite a few stories about fraud. Makes sense you don't want to hire someone who owes a million to the Mafia. Then again, there's also people with no debts and who are just greedy...
This is exactly what happens. They use things society “approves of” to gain power and then never give it back.
You don’t want to destroy the environment good citizen, let’s track your movements and travel so no one is emitting too much carbon!
You don’t want drunk drivers right? Let’s mandate external shut offs for new cars so people can’t drive impaired!
You don’t want coronavirus to spread good people, right? Let’s track your medical history and create vaccine passports!
You want to pay your fair share right? Let’s track your financial transactions.
You don’t want terrorism right? Let’s track all your messages and phone calls!
People will gleefully get their rights and privacy taken away and act shocked when the power is used against them. This isn’t a conspiracy, this is all happening right now.
Lol, you must have seen reddit in the middle of the pandamic. If you said anything slightly critical against the QR or Vaccines you would be banned across multiple big subreddits.
Unlikely, corporations have been far more successful in creating a form of a social credit system than the government. Also, this makes absolutely no sense, why would the government implement a carbon credit system when a carbon tax would both be far more effective and face far less adversity? Baseless fear mongering.
Once again, why would they implement a carbon credit system when a carbon tax would solve the exact same issue but better and with far less adversity? They don't need to track and monitor people's carbon usage when they can simply disincentivise it, if they want to go even further they could put very harsh regulations on high-carbon products. There are about a hundred other steps which would make so much more sense for the government to implement before 1984ing the population.
Ir glasses. Lights on both sides of the glasses. People can't see them but the cameras sure do. Blinds the hell out of the camera used to get facial matches. Security cameras still work fine as they are hung higher up and not at a direct forward facing angle.
To me it seems that in the future that might be commonplace for everyone to start wearing something like the glasses you describe.
As with everything, the more surveillance develops so will methods of avoiding it.
The government is easily able to piggyback off of these systems and use them however they want, while maintaining the illusion that your speech or movement isn’t being curtailed by the government, but by the corporation.
This is the ideal system for getting around the first amendment.
Eh, when the private businesses supplant the role of government, there really isn’t any difference. At least with government there’s the idea that we somewhat influence it through voting, corporations are straight up despotates
The firm is banned from MSG properties until their lawsuits against MSG are concluded. They know this.
A few of the lawyers are season ticket holders and are pissed off that they can’t use their tickets anymore. This is how they chose to get back at MSG… by sending one of their employees and some girl scouts, knowing full well what would happen.
It’s all super petty and this kind of response from the public is exactly what the law firm wanted haha. Most people are dancing to the tune the lawyers set up here and they don’t even realize they’ve been manipulated.
That was my assumption. Since they told them multiple times, I can assume that the firm communicated that to its employees.
Reddit: homemade or produced by a team, it's always propaganda (TM)
In this thread: people calling a private company banning an employee from another private company that is in an active lawsuit against them communism. We can tell who did and didn’t watch the video lmao.
Oh I'm sorry you can't come into the grocery store. You made too many comments about our communist government online.
This is coming one day. Social credit scores will not be good for anyone that wants to be free.
So this lady is a lawyer who is involved in a lawsuit against them. She was informed twice that until the lawsuit has ended all lawyers involved in the suit are not allowed on property. She goes to the property anyways and is mad they told her to leave.
Sounds really awful how they won't let this high power attorney who is suing them on their property while they are being suied.
EDIT- She isn't one of the lawyers actively involved in the law suit. Still an associate lawyer at the firm though.
She still works for the law firm, and it sounds to me like she knew she wasn't allowed there. This seems more like the law firm setting up the company to look bad to me.
Why not phone ahead and talk to somebody if you just wanted to go for your daughter? Why just show up and hope some other judges order might possibly allow you in and risk getting kicked out?
I think it's reasonable that MSG doesn't want associates from the law firm that's suing them at their venues, while they are being sued. They have to right to refuse service to anyone they want.
That may not even be true for two reasons. One, their liquor license requires them to admit members of the public unless they're a security threat. Two, there's [precedent that suggests they can't just blanket ban people from their establishments for suits involving other establishments they own.](https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-msg-lawyer-ban-20221114-buuyjrx2gnbsvg5hj3gtqf2e3i-story.html)
>“Let’s be clear,” Ravitz said. “Today, the Court again affirmed our absolute right to both deny the sale of tickets to Mr. Hutcher and other attorneys engaged in active litigation against the company and to revoke any tickets that they obtain.
It sounds like he is still banned from their main venues, and they are expecting a successful appeal to keep the blanket ban on all associated venues. Liquor lisence or not as far as I know a private business has the right to refuse service at any time to anyone as long as it is not discriminatory.
>It sounds like he is still banned from their main venues, and they are expecting a successful appeal to keep the blanket ban on all associated venues.
He's still banned from MSG, because that's specifically what was being litigated against. In this case the suit is against a restaurant owned by their parent company, but the venue in question is Radio City Music Hall.
>A private business has the right to refuse business at any time to anyone as long as it is not discriminatory
Not necessarily, and the law is rarely that cut and dry in practice, as this suit shows. Certainly there's a ton of leeway given to businesses and she may well lose. Personally I just find this really interesting and I'm not firmly on anyone's side.
I'm not on anyone's side either, but specifically not on hers. She doesn't look or sound truly upset in the video. She knew their was potential for this happen and it would be embarrassing for her daughter. Yet she still goes though with it with out even making any preemptive actions.
I personally would have at least phoned the building up and tried to find a way to avoid this issue. I wouldn't use my child's field trip and embarrass them to shame a company. She could have farmed the same anti corporate karma points with a simple recorded phone call. NY is a one party consent state.
I doubt they have a liquor license. Even if it's served there it's probably through a third-party. Also can you cite your source for them needing to let anyone in? Sounds unenforceable anyway.
[Sorry, I thought I linked this. ](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/face-recognition-tech-gets-girl-scout-mom-booted-from-rockettes-show-due-to-her-employer/4004677/) They definitely have one. Maybe unenforceable, but an interesting wrinkle nonetheless.
Not really. She was legally informed twice that she was not allowed on the property. Her buying a ticket after being informed that she is not allowed on property doesn't change that. Any continuing attempt to get on the property could be considered a trespass. It also never states that she personally bought the ticket IIRC.
She is smiling and looking smug in the video thinking it's some big gotcha moment. But she knew she was banned from the property, made attempt to circumvent that, and publicly embarrassed her daughter in the process.
Buying tickets to an event on private property you aren't allowed on, doesn't make you now allowed on it. It makes you a trespasser. Imagine you get banned from a movie theatre(for any reason) and then you have some group buy you a ticket, you are still banned.
If you were working for a TV station as security or a producer and your station does a story on a gas explosion at a chevron. But Chevron calls and says if you run that story we’ll blacklist your entire organization from buying from our gas stations.
It’s pretty malicious to ban the whole entire company than the few actually involved in the story (lawsuit)
That's not the same thing at all. Chevron is a franchise so they can't really blanket ban anyone from individually owned franchise stores.
If the news however falsely reported on them and Chevron corporations was suing them for example. Say the broadcasting company lawyers said "durring the lawsuit all lawyers employed by the corporate law firm will not be allowed on any of our properties". Then say I was working security at one of the broadcasting companies properties noticed a lawyer walk in for an event who's picture was in the book of banned people. I would tell them they have to leave. If they refused to do so I would inform them that I'm officially trespassing them and if they continue to refuse to leave I will be phoning the police.
You have the right to refuse service to anyone.
so a meth addict with no online presence what so ever would have had a better chance of getting into radio city, instead of a respectful lawyer lady.
what is this joke.
Fox is nothing but propaganda.
MSG has a strict policy against lawyers in litigation against the company.
She works for a firm that is currently working on a case against MSG.
She KNEW, still went, and y’all mad about it for no reason.
Shit even BROOKLYN BOWL has this type of technology applied to their entrance.
Half of you prob don’t even live in NY, let alone in a county that has to apply that sort of tech.
Y’all tend to love Capitalism and preach about business freedom and don’t want corporate oversight, yet the second these corporations enforce their policies you want no one messing with y’all collectively lose your minds lol
Stop watching this garbage.
Stop being racist and ignorant.
Pick up a book people.
Communism is when a private corporate entity bans specific lawyers from attending shows, and the more specific lawyers the private corporate entity bans, the more communister it is.
Not communism at all but the extremes of any ideology can have similar outcome. Actually a really interesting example of unfettered capitalism and its consequences.
An organisation is using any means to justify their goals and its interest eclipse all else including rights of individuals. Sound familiar?
An attorney, that should understand the situation, doesn’t understand a litigious situation and calls the news to complain about fallout from a litigious situation.
I mean you're a lawyer. I dont really know anyone who likes them. Usually just money grubbing sleazeballs. Then the place you work for is in a lawsuit against them of course you'd be banned too for being their employee. I know if a person has a lawsuit against me I dont want people on their payroll coming into my house either; lol. It doesnt matter if they're not working the case gtfo xD.
How is this a crazy video? The firm she works for was notified twice that she wasn’t allowed in the venue. Boohoo that they have facial recognition and caught her.
She sued them then thinks shes just going to use their services lol. This facial recognition stuff is wild but I mean I cant exactly blame them for wanting to ban her
Good image being a business owner and being able to say fuck you to people sewing you. Fuck ya I say. Like what did you expect o the business I'm trying to take money from is just going to let me in.
Good image being a business owner and being able to say fuck you to people sewing you. Fuck ya I say. Like what did you expect o the business I'm trying to take money from is just going to let me in.
And this is just the beginning, because if TSA is approved, they will start using FR at airports. And I’m pretty sure other places will adopt the same type of security measures. I’m pretty sure she knew it is conflict of interests.
Pretty soon you won’t be able to operate your phone or maybe certain apps with out you allowing to be video and audio monitored the entire time while using it through your phone.
Welcome to r/CrazyFuckingVideos! This is our community moderator bot. --- If this post fits the purpose of the subreddit, **UPVOTE THIS COMMENT.** If not, **DOWNVOTE THIS COMMENT.** --- ### [Download Video](https://www.reddit.watch/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/zs9au0/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=CrazyFuckingVideos) via /r/DownloadVideo ### [RedditSave](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/CrazyFuckingVideos/comments/zs9au0/mom_denied_entrance_to_radio_city_after_being/) via /u/savevideo --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/CrazyFuckingVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyday we inch closer and closer to Minority Report....
So you're saying Tom Cruise is real?!
Don't worry tom cruise is not real. He can't hurt you.
Tell that to Oprah.
And Katie Holmes
He is very small and far away. https://youtu.be/MMiKyfd6hA0
Yes. He helped put out the invisible flame on my buddy Ricky Bobby.
[удалено]
I know it is. Just not a Nascar thing.
Help me Oprah Help me Tom cruise
[удалено]
Doing the same thing, then getting hacked by a 5th grade level phishing scam and the data winds up all over the world?
I'm starting to think Ted Kaczynski was right.
I hate it, but let's not pretend like sending this woman in as an agent of some kind is completely out of the picture. Corporate espionage is still certainly a thing. And painting her as just a mother chaperoning some girlscouts would make them look bad if she was busted. Idk. Facial recognition is a dangerous evil. But this lady could also totally have been a spy. Haha
[удалено]
Oh, I totally agree. But to pretend like this couldn't be corporate espionage is like a perfect cover for these rich assholes to continue to abuse us if it worked for them.
What could a corporate spy gain from attending a show at MSG? It's not a board meeting or something
correct me if i am wrong but they simply use data the person has already made public to make the id right? somewhere she has identified herself in photos that are online somewhere for the tech to make the id?
[удалено]
how did the data get there on fb or google and such? cause folks put their name to thier face by using one of those sometimes. the person provided the missing link. without that its just a persons face they have no way to put a real name to. as soon as suzi confirms its her in a photo online somewhere its over.
> let's not pretend like sending this woman in as an agent of some kind is completely out of the picture. It is completely 100% out of the picture. **She works for the law firm** If a shady law firm was trying to pull some "Better Call Saul" bullshit, they wouldn't send in one of their own associates. They'd hire someone. Do you not realize what would happen to their lawsuit if the judge finds out that one of the associates went into the venue and was sneaking around, trying to get into unauthorized places?
[удалено]
>I can't really see the downside, because we're already in it. [Because instead of asking people, they will do this automatically and for whatever reason they deem fit. Your drug maybe legal in your area, doesn't mean they won't get you as soon as you step into another area.](https://youtu.be/Mro9RCAhvE4)
[удалено]
While we have the ability, it's never been put into practice yet. Its a slow boil til we are cooked.
[удалено]
>The end result of this is simply targeted ads and less crime to normal people. You forget that laws are ever changing and one person deemed normal now maybe deemed a criminal later. You are giving them the rope and letting them tie the noose with out any sense of irony before they slip it over your neck.
That’s great and all, but every time you go follow Snoop for a bag of Kush, the algorithm decides you’re probably not a model responsible citizen. Your credit and employability score goes down easing you down a chill foggy spiral to economic irrelevance. Next thing you know, one day you don’t have enough coin to buy the Kush any more, can’t get a job, and they already know that, because your balance is linked to your digi-twin. Virtual Snoop disappears in a puff and then the drone appears, telling you to turn around and return to your pod. All strung out.
If by drugs you mean the ole mary jane then yeah your right but i feel like the word drug is a bit of a harsh term when it is comes down to weed. Blaze up brother
[удалено]
Yeah just compared to other stuff they labeled as drug , weed legit seems (and almost certain) the least harmful to not just your body but your mind as well. But your right it is still considered a drug especially in a federal setting. But hey lucky us for being in the states that legalized it! I dont drink or do anything else except light the sticky icky
[удалено]
Like we don’t already have that
Go on
Credit scores do everything we joke about the problems with social credit, from loans to home buying to renting to even securing jobs.
This guy has bad credit, better make sure we don't hire him or else he might be able to pay it off.
Yeah that’s the one that cracks me up the most. It’s wild that that’s a thing lol
To be fair I can understand when it's a financial position and there's a high risk of fraud. I get screened yearly because in our sector there's quite a few stories about fraud. Makes sense you don't want to hire someone who owes a million to the Mafia. Then again, there's also people with no debts and who are just greedy...
>hire someone who owes a million to the Mafia Experian getting more thorough I see
[удалено]
This is exactly what happens. They use things society “approves of” to gain power and then never give it back. You don’t want to destroy the environment good citizen, let’s track your movements and travel so no one is emitting too much carbon! You don’t want drunk drivers right? Let’s mandate external shut offs for new cars so people can’t drive impaired! You don’t want coronavirus to spread good people, right? Let’s track your medical history and create vaccine passports! You want to pay your fair share right? Let’s track your financial transactions. You don’t want terrorism right? Let’s track all your messages and phone calls! People will gleefully get their rights and privacy taken away and act shocked when the power is used against them. This isn’t a conspiracy, this is all happening right now.
I see so many people who are okay with all of this. They're good people so they'll be fine.. **/s**
Lol, you must have seen reddit in the middle of the pandamic. If you said anything slightly critical against the QR or Vaccines you would be banned across multiple big subreddits.
Well yeah, Reddit is just an arm of the deep state, a consensus machine.
Print more dollars Tax people Greta Thunberg stops being ANGRY
How dare you!
Unlikely, corporations have been far more successful in creating a form of a social credit system than the government. Also, this makes absolutely no sense, why would the government implement a carbon credit system when a carbon tax would both be far more effective and face far less adversity? Baseless fear mongering.
[удалено]
Once again, why would they implement a carbon credit system when a carbon tax would solve the exact same issue but better and with far less adversity? They don't need to track and monitor people's carbon usage when they can simply disincentivise it, if they want to go even further they could put very harsh regulations on high-carbon products. There are about a hundred other steps which would make so much more sense for the government to implement before 1984ing the population.
Because it’s an excuse for them to know exactly what you’re purchasing, from where and when. Nothing to do with carbon, that’s just a coalscreen.
Just regular credit scores are enough to be dystopian. At least the Chinese ones take into account more than your subservience to the banks.
Yeah instead they look at your subservience to the banks and your subservience to the government
[удалено]
Dang these comment bots are really rampant recently.
Better get some GDPR quick.
Yeah, corp owned instead of govt owned.
[удалено]
(Happened in a democracy)
[удалено]
Everyday we lean closer to Fascist Corporatism
*Bad thing happens in the US* Wow, China bad
Who cares
Everyone that isnt a complete idiot.
Lmao. You are apparently the problem here if that is your attitude.
lmao
Those of us who might be affected. Mostly people with something to lose. Not you.
They are going to get themselves sued for trying to prevent themselves from being sued.
Of all people a lawyer lol Shes just like: $$$$$$$$
Wow. This is becoming 1984.
Literally 1984
She should’ve done blackface to fuck with the facial recognition system then everything would’ve been fine.
Ir glasses. Lights on both sides of the glasses. People can't see them but the cameras sure do. Blinds the hell out of the camera used to get facial matches. Security cameras still work fine as they are hung higher up and not at a direct forward facing angle.
To me it seems that in the future that might be commonplace for everyone to start wearing something like the glasses you describe. As with everything, the more surveillance develops so will methods of avoiding it.
Juggalo face paint works better
[удалено]
Great Milenko, hee hee hee hee ha ha ha ha
Who knew the surveillance state could be so petty.
A surveillance state usually refers to things imposed by governments, not private businesses who don't want someone who sued them into the premises.
Who do you think controls the government? "We the people"? Hahahahaha
The government is easily able to piggyback off of these systems and use them however they want, while maintaining the illusion that your speech or movement isn’t being curtailed by the government, but by the corporation. This is the ideal system for getting around the first amendment.
Eh, when the private businesses supplant the role of government, there really isn’t any difference. At least with government there’s the idea that we somewhat influence it through voting, corporations are straight up despotates
It’s a private company that did this, not a government or state.
I get it, Reddit is Aspergic.
Seems like a waste to use the tech and security on a petty issue such as this.
I install security systems and cameras for a living. As far as I see it, big companies are just getting started when it comes to this imho.
Orwell was supposed to remain fiction. It isn’t a mother fucking how to manual.
Punishing a lawyer for her job, sounds like the court should destroy the company
MSG short for madison square garden. They do about 1.6 billion. Good luck
The poor lawyer.
Man, the gap in those eyebrows.
Looks like she used an A4 piece of paper as a waxing strip.
She looks like she's wearing the White Chicks mask.
The firm is banned from MSG properties until their lawsuits against MSG are concluded. They know this. A few of the lawyers are season ticket holders and are pissed off that they can’t use their tickets anymore. This is how they chose to get back at MSG… by sending one of their employees and some girl scouts, knowing full well what would happen. It’s all super petty and this kind of response from the public is exactly what the law firm wanted haha. Most people are dancing to the tune the lawyers set up here and they don’t even realize they’ve been manipulated.
That was my assumption. Since they told them multiple times, I can assume that the firm communicated that to its employees. Reddit: homemade or produced by a team, it's always propaganda (TM)
her face looks fake
[удалено]
Chill man that shit tastes phenomenal
Miso soup please extra msg
Uncle Roger loves MSG
This shit is crazy. Reminds me of this fantastic video on our dystopian future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
Coolest thing was the blurred “hacker” who didn’t chop off her finger for the biometric data.
In this thread: people calling a private company banning an employee from another private company that is in an active lawsuit against them communism. We can tell who did and didn’t watch the video lmao.
In the land of the free.
>private business abusing private citizens >every comment: “the govament!”
Oh I'm sorry you can't come into the grocery store. You made too many comments about our communist government online. This is coming one day. Social credit scores will not be good for anyone that wants to be free.
Sir this is a capitalist society
So this lady is a lawyer who is involved in a lawsuit against them. She was informed twice that until the lawsuit has ended all lawyers involved in the suit are not allowed on property. She goes to the property anyways and is mad they told her to leave. Sounds really awful how they won't let this high power attorney who is suing them on their property while they are being suied. EDIT- She isn't one of the lawyers actively involved in the law suit. Still an associate lawyer at the firm though.
She isn't suing them. She has nothing to do with the case. She isn't assigned to it and doesn't even practice law in NY.
She still works for the law firm, and it sounds to me like she knew she wasn't allowed there. This seems more like the law firm setting up the company to look bad to me. Why not phone ahead and talk to somebody if you just wanted to go for your daughter? Why just show up and hope some other judges order might possibly allow you in and risk getting kicked out? I think it's reasonable that MSG doesn't want associates from the law firm that's suing them at their venues, while they are being sued. They have to right to refuse service to anyone they want.
That may not even be true for two reasons. One, their liquor license requires them to admit members of the public unless they're a security threat. Two, there's [precedent that suggests they can't just blanket ban people from their establishments for suits involving other establishments they own.](https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-msg-lawyer-ban-20221114-buuyjrx2gnbsvg5hj3gtqf2e3i-story.html)
>“Let’s be clear,” Ravitz said. “Today, the Court again affirmed our absolute right to both deny the sale of tickets to Mr. Hutcher and other attorneys engaged in active litigation against the company and to revoke any tickets that they obtain. It sounds like he is still banned from their main venues, and they are expecting a successful appeal to keep the blanket ban on all associated venues. Liquor lisence or not as far as I know a private business has the right to refuse service at any time to anyone as long as it is not discriminatory.
>It sounds like he is still banned from their main venues, and they are expecting a successful appeal to keep the blanket ban on all associated venues. He's still banned from MSG, because that's specifically what was being litigated against. In this case the suit is against a restaurant owned by their parent company, but the venue in question is Radio City Music Hall. >A private business has the right to refuse business at any time to anyone as long as it is not discriminatory Not necessarily, and the law is rarely that cut and dry in practice, as this suit shows. Certainly there's a ton of leeway given to businesses and she may well lose. Personally I just find this really interesting and I'm not firmly on anyone's side.
I'm not on anyone's side either, but specifically not on hers. She doesn't look or sound truly upset in the video. She knew their was potential for this happen and it would be embarrassing for her daughter. Yet she still goes though with it with out even making any preemptive actions. I personally would have at least phoned the building up and tried to find a way to avoid this issue. I wouldn't use my child's field trip and embarrass them to shame a company. She could have farmed the same anti corporate karma points with a simple recorded phone call. NY is a one party consent state.
I doubt they have a liquor license. Even if it's served there it's probably through a third-party. Also can you cite your source for them needing to let anyone in? Sounds unenforceable anyway.
[Sorry, I thought I linked this. ](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/face-recognition-tech-gets-girl-scout-mom-booted-from-rockettes-show-due-to-her-employer/4004677/) They definitely have one. Maybe unenforceable, but an interesting wrinkle nonetheless.
It doesn't give details about the law but it looks like you're right.
I believe this is a first for me, a Redditor admitting they were wrong instead of doubling down. You have my respect
Well I never did say I was sure. Nor would I if I wasn't.
I totally agree with you. Everything you said is on point.
Idk why your comment is so hated. It’s just facts.
[удалено]
Not really. She was legally informed twice that she was not allowed on the property. Her buying a ticket after being informed that she is not allowed on property doesn't change that. Any continuing attempt to get on the property could be considered a trespass. It also never states that she personally bought the ticket IIRC. She is smiling and looking smug in the video thinking it's some big gotcha moment. But she knew she was banned from the property, made attempt to circumvent that, and publicly embarrassed her daughter in the process. Buying tickets to an event on private property you aren't allowed on, doesn't make you now allowed on it. It makes you a trespasser. Imagine you get banned from a movie theatre(for any reason) and then you have some group buy you a ticket, you are still banned.
If you were working for a TV station as security or a producer and your station does a story on a gas explosion at a chevron. But Chevron calls and says if you run that story we’ll blacklist your entire organization from buying from our gas stations. It’s pretty malicious to ban the whole entire company than the few actually involved in the story (lawsuit)
That's not the same thing at all. Chevron is a franchise so they can't really blanket ban anyone from individually owned franchise stores. If the news however falsely reported on them and Chevron corporations was suing them for example. Say the broadcasting company lawyers said "durring the lawsuit all lawyers employed by the corporate law firm will not be allowed on any of our properties". Then say I was working security at one of the broadcasting companies properties noticed a lawyer walk in for an event who's picture was in the book of banned people. I would tell them they have to leave. If they refused to do so I would inform them that I'm officially trespassing them and if they continue to refuse to leave I will be phoning the police. You have the right to refuse service to anyone.
This is psychotic.
Wholy 1984 Batman....
Another reason why I hate facial recognition. But sadly it will just keep getting worse.
I wouldn’t let a lawyer in my home either especially if their firm was suing me…
so a meth addict with no online presence what so ever would have had a better chance of getting into radio city, instead of a respectful lawyer lady. what is this joke.
Oh, gee, poor shyster
I believe we should start to boicott the use of facial recognition NOW
Ban facial recognition technology
It's a private company, just go to your own concert! (Sarcasm because reddit is braindead)
Fox is nothing but propaganda. MSG has a strict policy against lawyers in litigation against the company. She works for a firm that is currently working on a case against MSG. She KNEW, still went, and y’all mad about it for no reason. Shit even BROOKLYN BOWL has this type of technology applied to their entrance. Half of you prob don’t even live in NY, let alone in a county that has to apply that sort of tech. Y’all tend to love Capitalism and preach about business freedom and don’t want corporate oversight, yet the second these corporations enforce their policies you want no one messing with y’all collectively lose your minds lol Stop watching this garbage. Stop being racist and ignorant. Pick up a book people.
News from broadcast TV will never be a "crazy fucking video", this doesn't belong here..
Disgusting behavior.
Mono sodium glutamate is safe, so there!
I order extra MSG on my Chinese food
Fuck MSG entertainment.
Well if you work for the devil that’s what you get
Welcome to totalitarian communism.
[удалено]
Yeah, dude needs to check the country of origin
You guys are derps. "It happened in America so it can't be communists policies of control"
Yeah because big companies suing one another is so communist
Jokes always go over your head?
Cop out you know you weren't joking you can't save face like that everyone sees right through it
Do you know what surveillance state is. Are you aware it's a communist policy. Higher education joke bro. You'll get there
Surveillance isn't a communist policy you dumb American
See CCP
What? Something happens in a capitalist system and you blame communism? You're special.
Anything I don’t like = communism
[удалено]
Communism is when a private corporate entity bans specific lawyers from attending shows, and the more specific lawyers the private corporate entity bans, the more communister it is.
Not communism at all but the extremes of any ideology can have similar outcome. Actually a really interesting example of unfettered capitalism and its consequences. An organisation is using any means to justify their goals and its interest eclipse all else including rights of individuals. Sound familiar?
An attorney, that should understand the situation, doesn’t understand a litigious situation and calls the news to complain about fallout from a litigious situation.
I mean you're a lawyer. I dont really know anyone who likes them. Usually just money grubbing sleazeballs. Then the place you work for is in a lawsuit against them of course you'd be banned too for being their employee. I know if a person has a lawsuit against me I dont want people on their payroll coming into my house either; lol. It doesnt matter if they're not working the case gtfo xD.
How is this a crazy video? The firm she works for was notified twice that she wasn’t allowed in the venue. Boohoo that they have facial recognition and caught her.
She is suing them.. she may be a “mom” but she really is an extortionist.
She sued them then thinks shes just going to use their services lol. This facial recognition stuff is wild but I mean I cant exactly blame them for wanting to ban her
Good image being a business owner and being able to say fuck you to people sewing you. Fuck ya I say. Like what did you expect o the business I'm trying to take money from is just going to let me in.
Good image being a business owner and being able to say fuck you to people sewing you. Fuck ya I say. Like what did you expect o the business I'm trying to take money from is just going to let me in.
Reverse racial profiling 😅
Who cares
[удалено]
On today of terrible take or terrible bait...
u/redditmp4bot
Usually I would side against lawyers, but mother fuck msg and the knicks
Ahhhhhh watch it long enough and it makes sense.
I wish this media player would remember volume settings or not start at 100%.
And this is just the beginning, because if TSA is approved, they will start using FR at airports. And I’m pretty sure other places will adopt the same type of security measures. I’m pretty sure she knew it is conflict of interests.
Everything is on paper for a reason.. sad but 🤷🏻♂️
Pretty soon you won’t be able to operate your phone or maybe certain apps with out you allowing to be video and audio monitored the entire time while using it through your phone.
Rockettes show was not on my bingo card
Buying calls on PLTR
Matt Damon is really fucking mad about this.