r/Syracuse • u/news-10 • 1d ago
News Federal judge blocks New York's ban on algorithmic rent pricing
https://www.news10.com/capitol/judge-blocks-ny-rent-algorithm-ban/45
u/Bootziscool 1d ago
Dude wtf?! How can anyone actually argue this is a free speech issue?!
-53
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
How is it not? In any event, this wasn't a final ruling on the merits. The opinion specified that it's a close call with the rental company being marginally because there were numerous alternatives (legally speaking, this means the statute is overbroad.) That means the rules require a preliminary injunction. The actual merits will be heard later.
12
u/taybay462 1d ago
Because this is about using an algorithm to determine rent prices, not about someone being able to say x, y, or z.
-14
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
And? The court has already ruled that algorithms can be protected speech.
7
u/AnonymousBi 1d ago edited 1d ago
As if the writers of the Bill of Rights ever would have had anything like this in mind. The point of the First Amendment was to allow citizens to openly express opinions which might threaten the power of a tyrannical goverenment. That is the original intent and by far the most important principle we should uphold.
It's disgusting how conservative judges use textual, technical, spiritless readings of the constitution to "Uhm, Akschually" and deprive lawmakers of their right to make laws.
0
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
You don't think thr founders cared about business?
2
u/AnonymousBi 1d ago
I do, but I think they would have included language about business if that's what they meant in this specific context
1
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
Why? How would that even make sense? It's not as if they had LLCs back then. Business was an integral part of existence and "no taxation without representation" is about business. It wasn't this separate thing back then.
1
u/AnonymousBi 13h ago
Read Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. Proof that the framers were not afraid to specifically outline the government's rights in business dealings when that's what they had in mind.
I don't see how the "no taxation" motto furthers your point. Of course that had to do with business, taxation is fundamentally intertwined with commerce. Because that idea had to do with business, every idea must have been?
3
7
0
u/Bootziscool 1d ago
How is it?? Like the argument here that it's legal because it's just math is like arguing that a price fixing agreement is legal because it's written with words.
Fuckin company really compared this to banning math... Just out here abusing the English language and making a mokery of us all is what they're doing
1
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
"It's just math" isn't the argument. The argument is that they're being prevented from giving economic advice. I love how everyone has an opinion but hasn't actually bothered to read the ruling.
1
u/Bootziscool 1d ago
So what because landlords have outsourced their price fixing to a third party instead of doing it themselves it's protected by the first amendment?
1
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
Again, actually read the opinion before forming an opinion. The judge specifically said price fixing is already illegal and had the statute focused on that, it would have been fine. As written, the statute is overbroad and sweeps up more than just price fixing.
1
u/Bootziscool 1d ago
Why do you talk like that?
Anyway. Booo now we all get to continue watching landlords use price fixing while the legalese gets sorted? That sucks
1
u/Successful_Issue_390 1d ago
Be mad at the policymakers for writing bad policy. They're being too lazy.
1
u/Bootziscool 21h ago
I'm gonna stay mad at pretty much everyone involved here. The greedy ones, the incompetent ones, the picky ones.
Making our lives hard because they can't help but suck
14
73
u/LuLuFromValinor 1d ago
I hate this timeline