Become a tenant at the Windermere Cay complex in Winter Garden, Florida, and you can check your First Amendment rights at the door.
Its management wants to force new tenants to sign a “social media addendum” as part of their lease. And if they dare to post a negative online review of the building, they’ll face a fine of $10,000.
But reaction to this attempted muzzling of freedom of speech has been one the landlord probably didn’t expect.
Yelp! has been flooded with negative reviews of the complex.
Among these:
If you are that worried about negative reviews, that just makes me ask one question: What are you hiding?
* * * * *
This complex made national news by threatening a $10k fine to residents if they share a bad review or photo. This legal bullying demonstrates either an oppressive management or a complete ignorance of social media or personal freedom.
In both cases you should exercise caution if considering them and read your contracts carefully.
* * * * *
I’ve got a great business idea. When our customers complain, instead of us fixing the problem we will threaten them with blackmail by asking them for ten grand.
* * * * *
Sieg Heil Windermere!! Gestapo much???
What century do you people exist in?? I wouldn’t live here if you paid me to. You couldn’t give these units away considering your BS threats to FINE RESIDENTS TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!
WTF is wrong with you people!! Anyone who gets a paycheck from this corporate monstrosity should be fired (or quit if they have half a brain…). Whoever came up with this super clever idea of A 10K FINE should be kneecapped.
* * * * *
Well apparently anyone who lives here will get fined $10,000 for any bad reviews, and any photos posted on reviews are copyrighted to the company by terms of the lease???
This complex is about as dishonest as it gets guys. If an apartment needs a policy like this then what else do you need to know about the quality of the management here.
* * * * *
The owners of the Apartment Complex are literally anti-free speech Nazis. Don’t move here unless you have $10k in your bank account and don’t believe in the First Amendment.
* * * * *
This apartment complex deserves 0 stars, shame on the management company for deceiving people into signing their addendum.
* * * * *
Be cautious of anywhere that fears the residents’ honest feedback so much that they forbid them from speaking out on social media. The energy spent on creating this stupid 10K clause could have been spent on actually creating an enjoyable living experience.
Click here: Windermere Cay – Apartments – Yelp
The sudden onslaught of bad publicity obviously caught the complex by surprise.
When contacted by Ars Technica, the online magazine that had exposed this outrage, a manager disclaimed the contract:
“This addendum was put in place by a previous general partner for the community following a series of false reviews. The current general partner and property management do not support the continued use of this addendum and have voided it for all residents.”
This despite the fact that the addendum had been given to a tenant to sign just a few days before.
Not only have these strong-arm tactics yielded a tidal wave of bad publicity, such an addendum would be legally unenforceable.
For starters, it’s a blatant violation of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press.
States have taken struck down efforts by businesses to censor the written opinions of their customers.
In his 2003 decision in New York vs. Network Associates, a judge ruled that telling customers they couldn’t publish reviews of software “without prior consent” violated New York’s unfair competition law.
Americans all-too-often take their Constitutionally-protected freedoms for granted–until they travel abroad to nations ruled by dictators. Or until they encounter would-be dictators at home.
Harrison E. Salisbury, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, faced the difficulties of censorship during his years as Moscow bureau chief for The New York Times (1949-1954).
Harrison E. Salisbury, with the Kremlin in back
Salisbury found he couldn’t rely on the Soviet government for reliable information on almost everything. Crime statistics weren’t published–because, officially, there was no crime in the “Workers’ Paradise.”
Unable to obtain reliable economic statistics, he plotted the rise and fall of the economy by shortages and surpluses in local stores.
Above all, Salisbury faced the danger of reporting accurately on the increasing paranoia and purges of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
“The truth, I was ultimately to learn,” wrote Salisbury in his bestselling 1983 memoir, A Journey for Our Times, “is the most dangerous thing. There are no ends to which men of power will not go to put out its eyes.”
Censorship victimizes both those who are censored and those who could profit from the truths they have to share.
Americans may be unable to bring freedom of expression to nations ruled by dictators. But they can–and should–fight to ensure that freedom of expression remains a hallmark of their own society.
"THE UNTOUCHABLES" MOVIE, ABC NEWS, AL CAPONE, ALCOHOL, ALTERNET, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DODD-FRANK FINANCIAL REFORM LAW, DONALD TRUMP, DRY STATES, ELLIOT NESS, FACEBOOK, FISCAL CLIFF, FLORENCE HARDING, IDAHO, KEVIN COSTNER, MAFIA, MIKE CRAPO, MORMONS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, PROHIBITION, RAW STORY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, UPI, USA TODAY, WALL STREET, WARREN G. HARDING, WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, WORD OF WISDOM
PRESENTING—SENATOR HYPOCRITE
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 4, 2018 at 12:10 amAt the end of the 1987 movie, “The Untouchables,” a reporter accosts Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner): “Mr. Ness, they’re saying that Congress will repeal Prohibition. If that happens, what will you do?”
And Ness—who has just spent the entire movie trying to put arch-bootlegger Al Capone out of business—replies: “I think I’ll have a drink.”
“The Untouchables” (1987)
In 1920, America went “dry”—officially.
The reason: Congressional passage of the Volstead Act—named after Andrew Volstead, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who managed the legislation.
For Americans generally, the law had a shorter name: Prohibition.
For 12 years—from 1920 to 1932—the United States Treasury Department declared war on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages throughout the country.
It was a losing war. Untold numbers of local police officers gladly turned a blind eye—for a price—to the bootleggers operating in their midst. So did legions of agents of the Treasury Department’s Prohibition Bureau.
And police weren’t the only ones willing to ignore the law. So were politicians at all levels. At the highest level: Warren G. Harding, 29th President of the United States.
Warren G. Harding
Harding allowed bootleg whiskey to be served to his guests during after-dinner parties. His wife, Florence, known as “The Duchess,” mixed drinks for the visitors.
Many of those public officials (and private citizens) who regularly indulged felt the law was needed to enforce “morality” onto others—especially the poor and immigrants.
Prohibition ended in 1932—to the sorrow of two major organizations. The first was anti-alcohol groups such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The second was the Mafia—which had raised millions of dollars via the sale of forbidden spirits.
Today Americans (except those living in officially “dry” states like Florida, Georgia and Alabama) can easily and legally obtain all the booze they can afford to buy.
But even in “wet” states, it’s illegal to drink and drive—as third-term United States Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) found out in 2012.
Mike Crapo
Crapo had been elected to the House of Representatives in 1992. After three terms in the House he successfully ran for the Senate in 1998.
On December 23, 2012, Crapo was arrested in Alexandria, Virginia, for driving under the influence. Crapo was pulled over after an officer saw him run a red light.
According to CBS News, Crapo failed several field sobriety tests and was taken into custody without incident. He was later released on an unsecured $1,000 bond.
On January 4, 2013, Crapo pleaded guilty to a drunk driving charge and was sentenced to a $250 fine and court costs, one-year suspension of his driver’s license, and court-ordered alcohol education and awareness classes.
But there’s more to this tale than mere political embarrassment. There’s also a story of religious hypocrisy to be told.
Crapo is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the Mormons. He graduated from the church’s Brigham Young University in 1973 with a B.A. in political science.
Among those acts that Mormons are forbidden to partake in is the drinking of alcohol. It’s part of the “Word of Wisdom” embraced by staunch church members: A ban on any use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea.
Indulging in any of these won’t get you excommunicated (as will, say, adultery or murder, which the church puts on the same level of evil). But it can get you banned from entering a Mormon temple, reserved for only the most devout members.
It is in their temples that Mormons perform such rituals as wedding ceremonies and proxy “baptisms for the dead.”
This inevitably came as a huge embarrassment for a man who represents Idaho, a state:
Thus, Crapo quickly released the following statement:
“I am deeply sorry for the actions that resulted in this circumstance. I made a mistake for which I apologize to my family, my Idaho constituents and any others who have put their trust in me.
“I accept total responsibility and will deal with whatever penalty comes my way in this matter. I will also undertake measures to ensure that this circumstance is never repeated.”
In November, 2016, Crapo was re-elected to a fourth Senate term.
Among his legislative accomplishments:
Share this: