Oct
01
A Slashdot reader noticed that in section 5 of the Terms of Service agreement between AT&T and its DSL subscribers, AT&T reserves the right to terminate or suspend service if
tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.
As Ars Technica writer Ken Fisher ruminated, it is doubtful whether this clause is even enforceable. It’s some kind of ironic that AT&T is doing more damage to its reputation by the inclusion of this clause which is intended to protection its supposed positive image.
Via ArsTechnica.
Loading ...
Open Threads at Dear Author. Want to know what new releases are out this month and what readers are excited about reading? Check out the threads below. 
We don’t like to censor comments nor do we endorse the comments of any poster. We do reserve the right to moderate comments but most of the time will not, believing, as Justice Brandeis did, that the greater good is in “more speech, not enforced silence.”
An insurance company told me that I couldn’t tell patients that something was unlikely to be a covered benefit. That my contract forbid me to say, “So-and-so health insurance won’t pay for that drug.” I told them they were not broccoli and that we still have free speech in this country, at least for now. My medical association weighed in on my side and I didn’t have any repercussions at all. Twits.
they were not broccoli
That’s hysterical.