Hes gonna get his ass laughed out of court.......after he pays Sony's fees of course.

You 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to privately owned message boards.

Does the so called "freedom of speech" even come into play with the internet? Or does it work off the origin of the servers?

What was the out come in Korea about virtual property after that guy got stabbed to death after stealing his mates sword or something in an mmo?

Originally posted by Addt4

Does the so called "freedom of speech" even come into play with the internet? Or does it work off the origin of the servers?

 

In the case of the U.S. ( which is the only country I know of which guarantees it's citizens "free speech" ), you have the right to say anything you want ( within reason and legality ) on your own site. You do not, however, have the right to say anything you want on mine.

Now if your site is hosted in another country, but you reside here and your site goes beyond what is allowed under freedom of speech ( such as posting the details of your plans to assassinate the President, for example ), your site can be blocked and shut down and you can be prosecuted if warranted.

If you reside in another country and your site is hosted in that country or anywhere other than the U.S., your site can simply be blocked but you cannot be told what you may/may not post.

That is how freedom of speech comes into play on the internet.

Ahhhh, America.   What a great, stupid country we live in.

Originally posted by XboxOmac

Originally posted by altairzq

Have you guys actually read the news? He payed for a service and was banned from it.

 

Yes, but breaking Sony's contract (EULA and TOS) makes Sony the right to get him banned. Only mistake was to refund his money.

 

Besides, it's Sony's forum, they make the rules. He doesn't like the rules, then he should have just gone some other forum to do his commotion.

eualas and what not that you just click to accept don't have much legal force and are way behind the laws, and are meaningless against an amendment in a constitution..

 I wonder if he realizes just how deep Sony's pockets go?? 

Originally posted by altairzq

Originally posted by XboxOmac

Originally posted by altairzq

Have you guys actually read the news? He payed for a service and was banned from it.

 

Yes, but breaking Sony's contract (EULA and TOS) makes Sony the right to get him banned. Only mistake was to refund his money.

 

Besides, it's Sony's forum, they make the rules. He doesn't like the rules, then he should have just gone some other forum to do his commotion.

 

eualas and what not that you just click to accept don't have much legal force and are way behind the laws, and are meaningless against an amendment in a constitution..

There's no amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing you unfettered free speech in private circumstances. If you say things I don't like in my house I can make you leave, same for Sony. it's a bullshit lawsuit and won't make it past the first legal test.

EULA and TOS issues are not as black and white as many here seem to think. There are many considerations, especially in MMOs and other virtual worlds, that are not very straight forward. Anyone who thinks that a gaming company can put whatever they like in EULA/TOS will be in for a big surprise.

While not exactly related to the topic,  I suggest you read the following to gain some perspective on the whole virtual property, EULA/TOS arguments:

Assessing Online Gamers' Authority to Sell In-Game Assets Where Adhesive Contracts Prohibit Such Activity:

blj.ucdavis.edu/article.asp

Here is the conclusion fromt that:

"Conclusion

Virtual chattels have value as property that belongs to MMORPG gamers. Gamers and businesses inject their labor into MMORPGEs. Individuals and businesses bear constitutive and identificatory relationships with their avatars and the virtual chattels secured in MMORPGEs. Moreover, recognizing property interests in virtual chattels will create an incentive for businesses to invest in MMORPGEs, and for MMORPG designers to choose the United States instead of a more favorable jurisdiction. Given these property interests, MMORPG designers implement unconscionable EULA, TOS, and TOU contracts to prohibit RMT activity. In those contracts, designers may terminate accounts for engaging in RMT activity, or reserve the penultimate right to pull the plug on the virtual world. Considering MMORPG participants’ property interests and the unconscionable contracts designers employ to prevent RMT activity, courts should find that designers trespass upon gamers’ virtual chattels when they terminate accounts that engage in RMT activity. Nonetheless, courts must employ the trespass to chattels doctrine with caution to prevent anomalous results and to preserve the often desired lawlessness inherent in MMORPGEs."

Hell if it was the UK servers it wouldnt even come to that, as we dont have a constitution with freedom of speech!

Originally posted by Adderax

Those inmates are probably good people.  Only scum bags can be lawyers.  Lawyers owe allegiance to 'legalise' English and to the BAR (like a Mc D's Franchise).  When you ask these scumbags if you must obey legal statues, they will say YES...because they are bound by it as LAWYERS.  However legal English is not everyday English...and unless you are a member of that society (BAR), you have no reason to follow in this crap.  Human beings are not bound by it.  Most are too stupid to know what's going on.  Bottom line, lawyers and judges are scum.

Spoken like an 8 year old. Sure we love to ridicule lawyers but guess what, generalizations and cartoon caricatures are not the real thing.

altairzq : "eualas and what not that you just click to accept don't have much legal force and are way behind the laws, and are meaningless against an amendment in a constitution.."
 

Good job ignoring the many posts (hell, almost everyone else in this thread) saying how your constitution means jack shit when it comes to free speech on private property.

Originally posted by thexrated

EULA and TOS issues are not as black and white as many here seem to think. There are many considerations, especially in MMOs and other virtual worlds, that are not very straight forward. Anyone who thinks that a gaming company can put whatever they like in EULA/TOS will be in for a big surprise.

While not exactly related to the topic,  I suggest you read the following to gain some perspective on the whole virtual property, EULA/TOS arguments:

Assessing Online Gamers' Authority to Sell In-Game Assets Where Adhesive Contracts Prohibit Such Activity:

blj.ucdavis.edu/article.asp

Here is the conclusion fromt that:

"Conclusion

Virtual chattels have value as property that belongs to MMORPG gamers. Gamers and businesses inject their labor into MMORPGEs. Individuals and businesses bear constitutive and identificatory relationships with their avatars and the virtual chattels secured in MMORPGEs. Moreover, recognizing property interests in virtual chattels will create an incentive for businesses to invest in MMORPGEs, and for MMORPG designers to choose the United States instead of a more favorable jurisdiction. Given these property interests, MMORPG designers implement unconscionable EULA, TOS, and TOU contracts to prohibit RMT activity. In those contracts, designers may terminate accounts for engaging in RMT activity, or reserve the penultimate right to pull the plug on the virtual world. Considering MMORPG participants’ property interests and the unconscionable contracts designers employ to prevent RMT activity, courts should find that designers trespass upon gamers’ virtual chattels when they terminate accounts that engage in RMT activity. Nonetheless, courts must employ the trespass to chattels doctrine with caution to prevent anomalous results and to preserve the often desired lawlessness inherent in MMORPGEs."

 

Thank you.  Yes, EULAs are NOT 100% binding in favour of the MMORPG designers.  You simply cannot write a contract that way.  Well, you can, but you shouldn't.  Because courts tend to look unfavourably on contracts like that.

I don't know the details of this case.  But I do know that there is no such thing as 'Freedom of Speach' anywhere... even in the U.S.  (Try distributing Communist literature there and see how you go.  You can, but there are rules.)
I suspect that if he is using 'freedom of speech' as a basis for the case he will probably lose.
 

That said, EULAs need a few more test cases.

Why do they need more test cases?

I'll be the last person to defned SOE, but they dont ban people without reason, its £10 a month less to them (yes you could argue some people might buy a new serial and start a new account etc, but if you've been banned, your probably less inclined to do that).

Estavillo's complaint also reveals that services like the Playstation Network are his main way of socializing, as he suffers from agorophobia (fear of crowds), as well as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depression, and Crohn's Disease (an auto-immune disease that attacks the digestive tract).

 

Just put a bullet in the mans head and call it darwinism already

Utter crap lawsuit. Here's another article. Still not a lot of information on the case. There is no information on what actually prompted the ban. The article included the actual filing.

Originally posted by Zorvan

........Sony will own his great-great-grandchildren's paychecks. lol

Do you really think we should allow this guy to breed?

Kinda dumbs down our gene pool.

Sony will probably offer the guy a refund of his money in exchange for going away. If he's smart, he'll take it and run. Otherwise Sony will ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous.

I am surpised to see how much weight you people put on the character of the guy who made the lawsuit.

Why I think he actually might have a case? Well, it sounds a bit retarded that if pay for games, I cannot play them because I said something in a discussion forum. I can understand he getting banned from the forum, but all Sony Station games as well?

I do not know exact details of the case, but that is the view I got from reading those couple of articles.

Originally posted by miropovo

Utter crap lawsuit. Here's another article. Still not a lot of information on the case. There is no information on what actually prompted the ban. The article included the actual filing.

Interesting.

He may not win completely - but if he can win any or all of points 5, 7 and or 8 it will be a victory for gamers.

Pity they resorted to 'freedom of speech' on point 6, although it depends on exactly what was said and in what context.
The competency of Moderators could be called into question though.

*I did not read the whole article, so I don't know the specifics yet*

While I have not agreed with some of the crap soe and other companies put in their eulas, I really fear for the very slim chance that this guy wins his case.  

Banning is an important tool for mmo companies.  It would be pretty aweful if a company had to go to court for banning someone who acts like a jackhole in any game. 

Originally posted by thexrated

I am surpised to see how much weight you people put on the character of the guy who made the lawsuit.

Why I think he actually might have a case? Well, it sounds a bit retarded that if pay for games, I cannot play them because I said something in a discussion forum. I can understand he getting banned from the forum, but all Sony Station games as well?

...

Yeah.  Dismissing the whole case because you think he is some kind of 'nerd' might be a bit premature.

I mean, you could only call him that if he hangs around on a forum on the internet talking to cyberbuddies.... er...um...

Anyway, he payed for a service.  In some countries, that would at least entitle him to a refund of unused credit.

Also, Sony may come unglued depending on their hiring, screening and training of the Moderators.
If it turns out that the Moderator concerned was less than 17... they will be looking to settle I would guess.

Pity he went the whole 'handicapped' route too.  Still, if that's what works for you.

Missed the filing earlier. It explains the thing much more clearly.

I cannot see why any gamer would be on the side of Sony on this one. And I find the ad hominems, evolution and gene-pool comments really retarded. 

Originally posted by Daffid011

*I did not read the whole article, so I don't know the specifics yet*

While I have not agreed with some of the crap soe and other companies put in their eulas, I really fear for the very slim chance that this guy wins his case.  

Banning is an important tool for mmo companies.  It would be pretty aweful if a company had to go to court for banning someone who acts like a jackhole in any game. 

 

He wont win. As soon as you say I agree to the EULA or agree to a account. you basically signed all ur rights away and they can do what ever they want to a extent and being banned is something u signed up for and you can get banned even if its for no reason. and theres nothing u can do about it. 

 This guy just doesn't know when to give up. I am on Sony's side. I trust that the staff of Sony knows what they are doing and that they banned him for a good reason. But, I would LOVE to hear both parties arguement in their case.

EDIT: Wow. This guy also claims to have all these different disabilties. He should have known what he had coming for him if he was doing all that trash talk.

Originally posted by Swanea

Ahhhh, America.   What a great, stupid country we live in.

Fear not. Its nearly to the point you wont even recognize it.

Originally posted by thexrated

I am surpised to see how much weight you people put on the character of the guy who made the lawsuit.

Why I think he actually might have a case? Well, it sounds a bit retarded that if pay for games, I cannot play them because I said something in a discussion forum. I can understand he getting banned from the forum, but all Sony Station games as well?

I do not know exact details of the case, but that is the view I got from reading those couple of articles.

Naw, if he acted badly he deserves what ever punishement they decided to give him.