Replies

"And naturally if the terminator can produce NO evidence of unlawful activity they'd lose a civil suit (where, note, the standard of proof is 'preponderance of evidence,' not 'beyond reasonable doubt') by the terminatee - that is far short of your claim that "they must first have a finding from a court."

How would Comcast determine the act was unlawful? There is no evidence just accusation. Further the court determined that since there is no evidence that the worker was guilty of a crime (For if he was he would be in jail or on probation which was exactly the judge's ruling) then voiding the contract based on the "unlawful clause" was in error. And since we are talking about Contract law which is settled in civil court the Comcast Contract clause is the same thing.

Strawmen arguments won't work apples to apples, oranges to orange and all that.

And naturally if the terminator can produce NO evidence of unlawful activity they'd lose a civil suit (where, note, the standard of proof is 'preponderance of evidence,' not 'beyond reasonable doubt') by the terminatee - that is far short of your claim that "they must first have a finding from a court."

How would Comcast determine the act was unlawful? There is no evidence just accusation.

Comcast would be ill-advised to terminate based only on accusation. Is there any reason to think that's what this program is about?

Further the court determined that since there is no evidence that the worker was guilty of a crime (For if he was he would be in jail or on probation

LOL! That one isn't in jail or on probation shows only that the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt, not that it was nonexistent. Before you pontificate on legal points, you should familiarize yourself with such basics.