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.
ABC NEWS, ABORTION, CBS NEWS, CLIMATE CHANGE, CNN, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ERNEST HEMINGWAY, FACEBOOK, FASCISM, GUN CONTROL, HARRISON E. SALISBURY, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, NBC NEWS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, REPUBLICANS, RIGHT-WING TERRORISM, ROE V. WADE, SPANISH CIVIL WAR, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, WORLD WAR ii
A LIE TOLD BY BULLIES
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on March 14, 2016 at 3:41 pmErnest Hemingway knew his Fascists. He fought against them in 1930s Spain, where Right-wing general Francisco Franco–aided by Adolf Hitler–ultimately overthrew the Spanish Republic in 1939.
And he fought against them in France after American forces landed in Normandy. He was one of the first Americans to reach Paris and help “liberate” the bar of the Ritz Hotel.
In the 1950s, he opposed the growing plague of anti-Red hysteria as represented by Wisconsin U.S. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.
Addressing a 1937 Writers Congress in a rare public speech, Hemingway said: “There is only one form of government that cannot produce good writers, and that system is fascism. For fascism is a lie told by bullies. A writer who will not lie cannot live and work under fascism.”
Ernest Hemingway
It’s thus clear what the Nobel-Prize winning author would think of a Missouri state senator’s efforts at censorship.
Lindsay Ruhr, a graduate student in the School of Social Work at the University of Missouri, chose to write her doctoral dissertation on the effects of the state’s recently imposed 72-hour waiting period for abortions.
Lindsay Ruhr
And this has drawn the ire of Missouri State Senator Kurt Schaefer, a Republican from Columbia, Missouri, who chairs the Missouri state senate’s interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life.
In late October, Schaefer sent a letter to the University of Missouri calling Ruhr’s dissertation “a marketing aid for Planned Parenthood — one that is funded, in part or in whole, by taxpayer dollars.”
Kurt Schaefer
Schaefer demanded that the university hand over documents regarding the project’s approval and said that, because the University of Missouri is a public university, it should not fund research that he said would promote elective abortions.
Missouri law prohibits the use of public funds to promote non-life-saving abortions.
In September, 2014, Missouri enacted a 72-hour wait for abortions. Reproductive rights advocates believed this is an effort to deny women access to legal abortion as established by the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Other Missouri legal restrictions require women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound scan and receive informational material that aims to persuade them from obtaining an abortion.
Lindsay Ruhr wants to find out “how this policy [the 72-hour waiting limit] affects women. Whether this policy is having a harmful or beneficial effect, we don’t know.”
Schaefer claims that Ruhr is biased in favor of abortions because her adviser is affiliated with Planned Parenthood of Kansas.
“This is a concerning revelation considering the University’s recent troubling connections to Planned Parenthood,” wrote Schaefer in a letter to University of Missouri officials.
Schaefer argued that Ruhr is illegally using public funds to conduct her dissertation research.
“It is difficult to understand how a research study approved by the University, conducted by a University student, and overseen by the Director of the School of Social Work at the University can be perceived as anything but an expenditure of public funds to aid Planned Parenthood.”
Under Missouri law, it is illegal for public employees and facilities to use state money towards “encouraging or counseling” a woman to have an abortion not necessary to save her life.
Even though Ruhr is seeking a PhD at the university, she is employed by Planned Parenthood and the university is not paying for her research.
Abortions in Missouri aren’t the only scientific subject that Republicans have made it forbidden to study. Among these:
As Harrison E. Salisbury, former New York Times bureau chief in Moscow, observed: “…The message was always the same: Shut up! Don’t rock the boat. Keep those unpleasant truths to yourself. The truth, I was ultimately to learn, is the most dangerous thing. There are no ends to which men of power will not go to put out its eyes.”
Share this: