Ever hear of a "hold harmless" clause? Protects you from being sued. Why would honorable people expect to get that?

If someone FORCES YOU to do something that puts you in jeopardy do you think it is fine and dandy being prevented from suing such somebody? These bugnors forcing opening when people are skyrocket dying are held harmless from any guilt associated with it. That is seriously stupid in my opinion. Only venal vile evil  people would think of protecting themselves like that and only the stupid dumb would agree to it. Like the stupid dumbs who attended the tulsa ego hate rally..remember the humiliating fiasco to which the trump subjected himself. The attendees had to sign a waiver that if the got the virus they would not sue the trump or any of those who put the ego hate rally together. About 6200 stupid dumbs showed up when a million were expected. That means 6200 stupid dumbs signed the waiver. There are millions of them out there dying (literally) to be in an audience with the ego hate master rules. Go figger! Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Tuesday!  STAY SAFE! :)

If people voluntarily attend a rally ... nobody is forcing them to do it.
As such, it makes sense that the organizers would have them sign waivers with "hold harmless" clause.

Otherwise you could wind up with a situation where some jack**s sues the organizer.
"I went to the rally of my own choice, but since I got sick I'm going to sue."

That makes no sense to me at all Walt. You buy a product of your own free will and it makes you deathly ill. If you can PROVE that why should the seller be held harmless? Same with a car. You buy it of your own free will and something breaks and there is an accident not your fault which cripples you for life. Should you hold the carmaker harmless for the DEFECT in the product you bought?. If you can explain the logic upon which you based your reply I'd sure appreciate it. Right now it seems like doubletalk gibberish. Not your fault. Thanks Walt! :)

Your examples are why there are laws requiring used car sales to disclose any defects they are aware of ... and car manufacturers to issue recall notices.  To inform the public, so they can make informed decisions.

If a car manufacturer issues a recall notice for (say) the air bag system, and you refuse to have it replaced - then you assume the liability, if you are injured by the system.

You are confusing "free will" with "informed consent".  They are separate legal concepts.  Just because you use "free will", doesn't mean you were fully informed of the dangers/risks.  That is the purpose of a waiver.  Whether it be for a school field trip, a surgical operation, or a political rally.  You are being informed there are risks involved and that you may be taking the liability if something goes wrong.

Now, there's also the fact that it's been upheld in numerous courts that it is virtually impossible to "sign away" some of your legal protections.  EG: It doesn't matter if a waiver is signed for a school trip, if the bus driver gets in an accident due to irresponsible behavior.

Thanks Walt. I knew I could count on you to restate what you meant so that I could understand it. Don't people facing operations have to sign an informed consent thing so in case something goes wrong they knew the risks and chose to forge ahead? Same thing as the virus waiver then? Okey dokey. I get it. I sure as he** wouldn't waive away my life for a rally. I would for an operation of course. I mean without it I'd die and with it I'd have a chance to survive. Who wouldn't take that chance? :) I just asked question about the post office possibly delaying delivery of mail. To cut the budget the postmaster is considering cutting out all overtime which would mean fewer hours given to sorting and delivering mail. During a pandemic and an election year? Scary thought but what would YOU do to cut costs? Thanks Walt.