Correct, everyone can see your post, but the only thing that has changed is that now that the first decision has been rendered, you're trying to walk back what you meant. If you thought that standing or the 1st Amendment was relevant at the time you made that post, you would have said so. You explicitly did not.
Instead, you:
- Wrote the other post had "lots of legal inaccuracies."
- Argued that if small businesses owners were affected by the decision, they had standing.
- Directly implied the 1st Amendment was not relevant.
- Argued the "real legal issue" was your since debunked contractual claim.
It is fine if you've changed you mind since the initial court decision, but let's not pretend you meant something you very clearly did not.
Clearly you do, given that you still don't seem to understand tortious interference with contract, and you still haven't read the complaint given you once again got the claim
wrong. That is
not the true tort claim here. JCN's claim alleges that MLB interfered with contracts between JCN, or more accurately, the small and medium-sized businesses that JCN represents, and other third parties (but explicitly not the Braves). Even if JCN was referring to a contract with the Braves, that would be no more "true" a claim than this one.
And for the record, the tort claim was raised to show to you that (1) you haven't read the complaint; and (2) you have no grounds to say what the "real legal issue" of the case will be when you don't have an accurate grasp of the legal issues at play in the complaint.
Let's not play this semantic game. Even if we are to accept your definition of what "real legal issue" means (and to be clear, I do not), you are still wrong. A quasi-contractual claim (more accurately, promissory estoppel) is not "the heart of this dispute", it is not the central claim of the complaint. Rather, it is one of several in a hodgepodge of claims upset with the decision to retract Atlanta's hosting of the All-Star Game.
The real heart of the dispute is much broader: that is was allegedly unlawful for MLB to move the All-Star Game. Certainly much broader than a contractual claim that for reasons I have already stated, you did not describe accurately.
It's not disagreement. You asserted expertise in the subject area, and then got your analysis wrong. I am forcefully dismantling your analysis because you asserted this expertise. Don't be upset, be more informed next time.
