Itch.io is shadowbanning or deleting NSFW and LGBTQ content

[Jd Smith1]

I could refuse to carry Harlem Unbound because I'm an unreasonable man who complains about "woke nonsense," but I couldn't refuse to sell anything I carry to a Black customer on account of his race or skin color.

The kicker is, as a retailer, you can refuse service to a customer, so long you don't specify a reason.

And while it is not a broad precedent, the USSC's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has made anti-discriminatory enforcement more challenging.

 

[Morrus]

The kicker is, as a retailer, you can refuse service to a customer, so long you don't specify a reason.

That's just an evidence issue. If you don't admit to it, it's harder to prove it. Just like any other crime.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That's just an evidence issue. If you don't admit to it, it's harder to prove it. Just like any other crime.

Sure, but (in the USA) since the USSC ruled that bias cannot be proven merely by statistical analysis alone, to have the basis for a civil suit, you need some evidence of a specific bias or intent to harm.

 

[Morrus]

Sure, but (in the USA) since the USSC ruled that bias cannot be proven merely by statistical analysis alone, to have the basis for a civil suit, you need some evidence of a specific bias or intent to harm.

That’s what I said. There’s no “but”.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That’s what I said. There’s no “but”.

Well, you said 'crime'. Discriminatory practices of the type we're discussing here are not a crime in the USA, they are grounds for civil litigation. And the rules of evidence in a US civil court are much different than in criminal cases. So yes, there's several very large 'buts', based on USSC rulings over the last two decades. The death of affirmative action, the recent reverse discrimination rulings, and the very recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission have altered the dynamics. Protected groups are not nearly as protected as they were say, five years ago.

 

[Morrus]

Well, you said 'crime'. Discriminatory practices of the type we're discussing here are not a crime in the USA, they are grounds for civil litigation. And the rules of evidence in a US civil court are much different than in criminal cases. So yes, there's several very large 'buts', based on USSC rulings over the last two decades. The death of affirmative action, the recent reverse discrimination rulings, and the very recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission have altered the dynamics. Protected groups are not nearly as protected as they were say, five years ago.

Oh god. Please stop!

 

[Jd Smith1]

Oh god. Please stop!

Sorry. But it seemed perinate, as a civil challenge, or threat thereof, in Federal court is literally the affected publishers' only hope.

 

[trappedslider]

On the not doing business with whoever they want front: Where Does "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" Come From?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, you said 'crime'. Discriminatory practices of the type we're discussing here are not a crime in the USA, they are grounds for civil litigation. And the rules of evidence in a US civil court are much different than in criminal cases. So yes, there's several very large 'buts', based on USSC rulings over the last two decades. The death of affirmative action, the recent reverse discrimination rulings, and the very recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission have altered the dynamics. Protected groups are not nearly as protected as they were say, five years ago.

Civil litigation concerns crimes, the crime is what makes the act wrongful in the first place, you can't be held responsible for damages concerning something you have a legal right to do. The distinction between a 'civil' case and a criminal one is merely the goal of the litigation-- a civil suit gets them to do something or achieves reparations, a criminal suit puts someone in prison.

I also wouldn't rely on the current U.S. supreme court to function as precedent, since their rulings generally don't participate or respect the overall process of judicial review, it's been a lot of 'easy-come-easy-go' rulings that won't likely carry much weight with future courts when cited. I'd expect the dissents to be cited more often than the rulings.

 

[Argyle King]

Civil litigation concerns crimes, the crime is what makes the act wrongful in the first place, you can't be held responsible for damages concerning something you have a legal right to do. The distinction between a 'civil' case and a criminal one is merely the goal of the litigation-- a civil suit gets them to do something or achieves reparations, a criminal suit puts someone in prison.

I also wouldn't rely on the current U.S. supreme court to function as precedent, since their rulings generally don't participate or respect the overall process of judicial review, it's been a lot of 'easy-come-easy-go' rulings that won't likely carry much weight with future courts when cited. I'd expect the dissents to be cited more often than the rulings.

Someone can be deemed not guilty of a crime yet still sued (and potentially liable) in civil court.

"Wrongful" and "illegal" are not necessarily synonymous.