Comments by "looseycanon" (@looseycanon) on "Food delivery EULA versus 7th Amendment: EULA wins. Bill of Rights loses" video.

  1. It's not that simple. While you're right in terms of law power (remember, even the EULA is a technically a law with limited scope, because it govern's a relationship based on contract between two or more parties), there is also specificity point of view, that is in play. That is why you can have laws that contradict constitutions and lawyers claim, they explain it... For Instance, part of Czech constitution is the Bill of rights, whose section 2, article 17, number 3) states "Censorship is inpremissible" and yet, §184, 40/2009 Sb, Trestní zákoník (criminal code) states, that defemation is a crime and therefore punishable. But that is censorship of a particular experession, specifically one, that is not truthful and has harmful effect on someone, but it is censorship none the less and now what? Say I defame someone and they report me to the police. Should the constitution be taken as the law to adjudicate this under, because it's the stronger law? Under this theory, I should have the right to speak even lies, that harm others, because denying me that right would censor me. Or should the criminal code be the law to adjudicate this under, bacause it's the more specific one? Generally specificity wins. And this can go into even crazier situations, if you go through the laws.
    1