The fact that the exact same wierd sounding rule is imposed in the entire country makes me think it is imposed by government, not the free market.
So, is adult swim imposed by a federal, state or city government?
Hmm… I am actually not understanding what it is your asking. What about Adult Swim is a “weird sounding rule?”
So, is adult swim imposed by a federal, state or city government? Or is it a free market creation?
id say free market, since alot of racist stuff gets shown in that channel
Eh, can you clarify what adult swim you’re speaking of? Do you mean the rules public swimming pools have setting aside a time for exclusive use of adults? Or the tv bloc?
adult swim, the rules imposed on public swimming pools.
Its a mandate enacted by the UN at the behest of the interplanetary governance body.
“Its a mandate enacted by the UN at the behest of the interplanetary governance body.”
I’ll assume that means it was probably a state mandate, that just happens to be copied by alot of state governments.
actually i found this:
In HUD v. Paradise Gardens, a Florida administrative law judge ruled that a community association’s rules limiting swimming pool use by children had no legitimate safety purpose and therefore violated the familial status provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Paradise Gardens in Margate, Florida, had pool regulations which barred children under the age of 5 from the pool altogether and restricted 5 to 16 year olds to swimming between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The administrative law judge ruled that the time restrictions were actually intended to keep children from the pool completely because the hours available to them were when they were in school, or during summer vacation, at the time of most danger from the hot Florida sun. The judge also rejected health and safety arguments for barring younger children from the pool because expert testimony established that the sanitariness of a pool was unrelated to the age of the swimmers and that close parental supervision would assure the safety of children of any age. The association and three individuals were ordered to pay damages for emotional distress, humiliation and inconvenience to two complaining families $4,000 for one family and $3,500 for the other family. In addition, the judge assessed civil penalties of $3,000 against the association and $100 each against two of its spokespersons.
Federal judges in California have been equally protective of the rights of families with children. In the case of Llanos v. Coelho, a federal district judge held that an apartment complex’s rules restricting children from swimming in several complex pools and from playing in “adult” areas violated the Federal Fair Housing Act. This case arose in the Del Monte Pines apartment complex in Fresno, California where a single mother with a baby daughter moved into the “adult” section of the complex. At the time she moved in, the Del Monte Pines was divided into a family section and an adult section. The complex had six swimming pools, of which only two were open to children. Children were also prohibited from riding bicycles, skating, riding skateboards, or playing in adult areas. The federal district judge concluded that the apartment complex’s rules restricting children’s access to certain facilities were discriminatory on their face. The judge rejected the apartment complex’s arguments that the rules were required by a reasonable business reason and that they were justified by safety concerns for unsupervised children. He said that the prohibition on children playing in adult areas “effectively prohibit[ed] children from accessing a large area of the complex” and discriminated against families based on familial status.
An apartment complex in Torrance, California, discovered too late that its rule prohibiting children from playing in the building area at any time violated the Fair Housing Act. In the case of Fair Housing Congress v. Weber, a tenant and her minor son lived at the Vista De Anza Apartments for more than four years until they moved out after receiving an eviction notice. During the time they lived there, the apartment managers told the minor child not to splash in the swimming pool, bounce his basketball, or ride his bicycle. An apartment rule stated that children were not “allowed to play or run around inside the building area at any time because of disturbance to other tenants or damage the building property.” The federal district judge held that the apartment complex’s rule that prohibited children from playing in the building area was discriminatory on its face and violated the Fair Housing Act. The apartment complex maintained that the rule was justified because it accomplished the goals of insuring the children’s safety and maintaining quiet. The judge found that these justifications were legitimate, but she concluded that the complex had not met its burden of showing that the rule was the least restrictive means of accomplishing these goals.