California blocks online non-disparagement clauses.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #1

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/california-blocks-online-non-disparagement-clauses/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=I140923

(William Forrest, CMI) #2

It's amazing that we now must pass laws in order in order to protect our basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #3

There was a certain vendor on this message board who required his customers to sign a users agreement which contained such a clause, now prohibited in California.

(David A. Andersen, TN HI# 40) #4

Just like the happy cows in California and Little League who doesn't keep score…

They don't want anyone to feel un c o m f o r t a b l e ...

(Michael Larson, WI Lic. # 1672-106) #5

Too funny.

And to think some of us tried to warn other inspectors about this type of clause in contracts and were threatened, lied about and disparaged for even discussing it.

(Jeffrey R. Jonas) #6

[quote="gromicko, post:3, topic:90055"]

There was a certain vendor on this message board who required his customers to sign a users agreement which contained such a clause, now prohibited in California.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for mentioning that. I was considering it, but was attempting to NOT open another can-o-worms on this mb.

(Frank Rotte, , CPI, San Diego Home Inspector) #7

Again, we lead the way.:D

(James H. Bushart) #8

[quote="mlarson, post:5, topic:90055"]

Too funny.

And to think some of us tried to warn other inspectors about this type of clause in contracts and were threatened, lied about and disparaged for even discussing it.
[/QUOTE]

When Nick's friend and dishonest lead broker, Nathan Thornberry, was allowed to run amok on this message board in his frenzied search for naive and gullible newbies to buy his gimmicks, truth took a backseat to what some thieves referred to as "successful marketing". Using forbidding contract language to prevent complaints from being made ... and then advertising that "no one every complains" ... was a big part of that dishonest strategy.

In addition to several other state entities who intervened ... now a court has ruled against this nonsense.

As is the case with most crooks, time is not on the side of those looking to make a fast buck.

Caveat emptor.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #9

As many members who frequent this unmoderated message board know, I'm the world's biggest free speech advocate, and thus am very pleased with this new California law.

(James H. Bushart) #10

[quote="gromicko, post:9, topic:90055"]

As many members who frequent this unmoderated message board know, I'm the world's biggest free speech advocate, and thus am very pleased with this new California law.
[/QUOTE]

LOL. ;-)

I have many old pdf copies of deleted posts and threads resulting from your moderation ... and emails (to and from you) concerning members who were expelled for things they posted ... that prove otherwise; however, I understand and recognize your need to publish your myth.

(Christopher Currins, CMI) #11

[quote="mlarson, post:5, topic:90055"]

Too funny.

And to think some of us tried to warn other inspectors about this type of clause in contracts and were threatened, lied about and disparaged for even discussing it.
[/QUOTE]

We warned inspectors, and a few organization leaders.;-)

(Chris Jacobi, HI01200061) #12

What about slander?

(Juan C. Jimenez) #13

[quote="gromicko, post:9, topic:90055"]

As many members who frequent this unmoderated message board know, I'm the world's biggest free speech advocate, and thus am very pleased with this new California law.
[/QUOTE]

I think disguise your love for drama as propensity for free speech. I do frequent this message board and I formed the opinion, based on your actions, that free speech isn't something you always tolerate.

(Stephen W. Stanczyk, WA License #221) #14

[quote="jjimenez, post:13, topic:90055"]

I think disguise your love for drama as propensity for free speech. I do frequent this message board and I formed the opinion, based on your actions, that free speech isn't something you always tolerate.
[/QUOTE]

Total agreement. One only need look at those that were kicked off the message board for posting something negative about the CMI cash cow to see that tolerance only goes as far as the pocketbook and ego.

(Juan C. Jimenez) #15

[quote="sstanczyk, post:14, topic:90055"]

Total agreement.

[/QUOTE]

Sweet. I thought I might be the only one.

(Jeffrey R. Jonas) #16

:-;;:-;;:-;;

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #17

When I say this message board is "unmoderated," I don't mean to imply that you can post anything you want such as comments that harm fellow members' businesses, racist comments, comments accusing staffers of doing something illegal, pornography, etc. We of course move them to the NFE forum when we are alerted to them.

(James H. Bushart) #18

[quote="gromicko, post:17, topic:90055"]

When I mean unmoderated, I don't mean that you can post anything you want such as comments that harm fellow members' businesses, racist comments, comments accusing staffers of doing something illegal, pornography, etc. We of course delete those comments (or more often, move them to the NFE forum) when we are alerted to them.
[/QUOTE]

LOL.

When your friend, the dishonest lead broker named Thornberry, attacked members of your association who stood up to him with false and libelous accusations and attempts to disparage them and their businesses, you supported him.

When a member made a single post that offended one of your staff members, you expelled him.

You promote free speech on the message board in the same manner that your relative, Andre Gromicko, promoted free speech in the former Soviet Union. ;-)

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #19

I'm actually having to deal with some comments made about a member's orientation last night and the member has gotten a government agency involved. I moved it to NFE as soon as I saw your post, but it was too late.

That's an example of moderation we admit to having to enforce on this message board.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #20

Another example would be a post whereby you accuse MICB staff of disregarding an applicant's requirement to submit the required documented proof. You can say almost anything you want about CMI. For example: You can claim (in the face of hundreds of posts from CMIs to the contrary) that CMI doesn't work. That's fine. You can argue about the requirements till the cows come home (just look and you'll find thousands of posts on that topic, made over many years). That's fine. But you can't make the criminal charge that a staffer "sold" someone a CMI who didn't supply the required documentation. You'll probably be expelled for a post like that.

Hope that helps explain.