Star Wars Galaxies

lol

how much any one want to bet that $OE still charged him after he got banned?

oh and in the usa we have a freedom of speech law. $OE has no right to ban anyone for posting a story.

---

Originally posted by hubertgrove

---

Originally posted by War_Dancer

 

---

Originally posted by mk11232

 
 
 
This story brings up two points.
First point is the fanatical Christian's who will blatantly lie and spin stories to cleanse the world of anything they don't agree with.  This is something that we will have to continue to deal with, but fortunately most people see them as the loons they are.

---

 
I'm not a christian and I'm also a lesbian so I don't get on at all well with fundamentalist christians but you know, I still find the story he posted very disturbing and don't blaime SoE at all for baning him from EQ1 after he wrote that story set in their game world, even if it was posted on some other site.

---

Well, I'm a christian and a heterosexual, and I seem to see what you so-called freethinkers and radicals don't - that this guy is being penalised by SOE for doing something that is not only constitutionally protected but which he did outside their game and outside their site. I mean, for god's sake, if Thomas Harris should play EQ2, does that mean Smedley will ban him for writing the Hannibal Lecter novels? Or would Stephen King get banned for writing the Dark Tower series of books - they have plenty of child abuse AND they feature Dark Elves too?

---

Writing a story with material that someone else owns the license for is not constitutionally protected. It is someone else's intellectual property and it is up to the owner of that intellectual property to determine how it is used.

They also reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason they choose. It's their property they can decide who can play.

Did they handle it well? no. Were they within their rights? sure.

---

Originally posted by iwantmyswg
lol
how much any one want to bet that $OE still charged him after he got banned?
oh and in the usa we have a freedom of speech law. $OE has no right to ban anyone for posting a story.

---

Originally posted by iwantmyswg

lol

how much any one want to bet that $OE still charged him after he got banned?

oh and in the usa we have a freedom of speech law. $OE has no right to ban anyone for posting a story.

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.

I highlighted the key spots in red so they were easy for you to find.

I also highlighted Slander. Because a fair portion of the stuff put out on the Refuge would fall under this.

SOE has the right to ban.  And the priviledge of keeping prepaid money unless disputed.

The customer has the right to go to his card issuing bank and filing a CHARGEBACK against that prepaid service time that SOE has, by their own rights, denied access to, but not refunded.

A SOE GM puke is not judge,  jury and executioner.  Well, maybe for that crappy game, but not in the law.

Due process is afforded everyone who demands it.  SOE can do whatever they want, and claim they can keep ill gotten gains during banned periods, but the customer has every right to retreive those funds.

For SOE to contest that right of retrieval requires them to PROVE their case before the law.  They can't.  As I stated, SOE documents almost NOTHING.  They do this largely to keep their management from going to prison, a standard Sony policy (Sony has been part of the RIAA cartel convicted of price fixing more than once, fyi).

---

Originally posted by safwd

---

Originally posted by iwantmyswg

lol
how much any one want to bet that $OE still charged him after he got banned?
oh and in the usa we have a freedom of speech law. $OE has no right to ban anyone for posting a story.

---

 
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.
 
I highlighted the key spots in red so they were easy for you to find.
I also highlighted Slander. Because a fair portion of the stuff put out on the Refuge would fall under this.

---

Now Libel, or slander, order to be proven, the person who feels they have been libelled must prove that a person knowingly lied to garmothers. I would like you to find one place where anyone is knowingly lying to harm SOE. Lies, in this context, don't cover opinons, just information presented as fact.

YOU made the claim that a "fair portion" would fall under that. Sorry, that's just wrong.

For instance, someone makes a claim that one of their sources say there are 10K subs. In order to prove that to be libel, you would have to first prove it is false, that the poster KNEW IT WAS FALSE. Both of those would be tough for SOE.

Not only would they have to prove it false, be releasing figures they don't want to release, but they would have to jump the second hurdle, proving the person KNEW it was false, and that they did NOT have a source that told them. That'd be even tougher.

Anyway I'd like to see you find a post on this forum that constitutes libel or slander.

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 

Now Libel, or slander, order to be proven, the person who feels they have been libelled must prove that a person knowingly lied to harm others.

Ya that's another problem with forums.. to many "legal eagles".

Before someone posts about libel/slander and lawsuits they should do a tad more research.

That actually falls under the "public figure" section which was a supreme court case in 1964.

(New York Times V. Sullivan).

The person you were responding to.. would be well off to look up the case and read it.. *.*

An interesting part would be..

"where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

And if you don't think Smedley or SOE fall under "public figures" you should read the definition.

So when someone says there is (as an exmaple) 10,000 subs.. and they really believe it.. the case is lost before it starts.

However, if you were a Sony shareholder.. you could contact the federal trade commission.. and say that you believe SOE was reporting "false positives" to make it look like a better investment.. to get the ball rolling on an investigation.. and if they found that SOE had lied about the number of subs.. then you could see something very fun happen.

Part of the problem with being part of a publicly traded company.. is that you can't make false statements that make things look better than they are... well you can.. but if you are investigated and found to have lied.. then you get into some fun federal charges to say the least.

/end ramble

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

---

Originally posted by safwd

---

Originally posted by iwantmyswg

 

lol
how much any one want to bet that $OE still charged him after he got banned?
oh and in the usa we have a freedom of speech law. $OE has no right to ban anyone for posting a story.

---

 
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in fair political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are also often made between speech and other acts, such as flag desecration, which may have symbolic significance.
 
I highlighted the key spots in red so they were easy for you to find.
I also highlighted Slander. Because a fair portion of the stuff put out on the Refuge would fall under this.

---

What you said anout slander isn't true. First off, slander involves speech, not the written word, which is called Libel.

 

Now Libel, or slander, order to be proven, the person who feels they have been libelled must prove that a person knowingly lied to garmothers. I would like you to find one place where anyone is knowingly lying to harm SOE. Lies, in this context, don't cover opinons, just information presented as fact.

YOU made the claim that a "fair portion" would fall under that. Sorry, that's just wrong.

For instance, someone makes a claim that one of their sources say there are 10K subs. In order to prove that to be libel, you would have to first prove it is false, that the poster KNEW IT WAS FALSE. Both of those would be tough for SOE.

Not only would they have to prove it false, be releasing figures they don't want to release, but they would have to jump the second hurdle, proving the person KNEW it was false, and that they did NOT have a source that told them. That'd be even tougher.

Anyway I'd like to see you find a post on this forum that constitutes libel or slander.

 

 

I find a large part of the stuff said about Smedley on the Refuge to be ridiculous so i thought i would be ridiculous also.