Source: Ars Technica:

The premise of the lawsuit is that this individual was banned for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech. The case certainly has interesting ramifications in the gaming world if he wins.

~Ripper

Somehow I doubt it will go far. I'm no lawyer, but Sony hasnt prevented him from speaking...only prevented him from speaking within their enviornment. If he wants to say something, he has other ways and avenues to do so.

I doubt it will go far....but then again, this is America

For the love of god I hope this guy loses and goes bankrupt from the court fees. That's right, I, me, am rooting for Sony. Crap like this is ridiculous. If people can't choose who they want and don't want on the forums and networks they control, this whole damn world is going to hell.

As we have all at one time or another pointed out to idiots proclaiming their "freedom of speech" has been denied on these forums, you have no constitutional right to free speech on private property, whether you be on a forum or in my living room when I kick your ass out for saying something I don't like.

This moron needs to be counter-sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and should be demanded to pay all of Sony's court/attorney expanses ( can you imagine how much just ONE of their lawyers cost, not to mention the twenty or so they'll throw at this moron? ). Sony will own his great-great-grandchildren's paychecks. lol

Wow... sounds like he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Whoever the idiot is that advised him to file a lawsuit (even if it was himself) should be fired.

It's unfortunate too, according to the article the guy has a lot of mental/health problems.

Originally posted by Dameonk

....

It's unfortunate too, according to the article the guy has a lot of mental/health problems.

Perhaps that's his way out of this

Most Lawyers won't take a case if they cant win..They will tell a person that straight up during consultation..Providing if the person is telling the whole truth to his lawyer..But hey it only took one person in the USA to kick God out of school through the Courts..Stranger things can happen...

Edit spelling..

my wife is a lawyer, so I hear about these kinds of things.

every game makes you agree to a terms of use document, in which you agree that they can throw you out and stop taking your money at there discretion.     much like I can throw someone out of my house if I chose because I own and control it.   playing a MMORPG is not a right  and is fully controlled by the people who spend the $$$$, so violate the terms and get banned.  

hopefully SOE will let him file alot of paperwork then bury him in paper and when he loses counter sue for frivolous suit, and hammer him for a few million.

Originally posted by Dameonk

Wow... sounds like he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Whoever the idiot is that advised him to file a lawsuit (even if it was himself) should be fired.

That is definately a self filed lawsuit.  I'm sure proving the ToS violation will not be a major issue but even then there would be (because there always are) instances that show uneven application of the ToS.  Even in these public/private setting that is problematic.

Ignoring that there is the issue of cashing out the station points.  ToS/EULA will not protect SOE here, ban= loss of money (regardless of whatever BS unit it is converted to) shouldn't hold up after seeing how the Paypal fiasco played out.

Originally posted by ghstwolf

Originally posted by Dameonk

Wow... sounds like he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Whoever the idiot is that advised him to file a lawsuit (even if it was himself) should be fired.

 

That is definately a self filed lawsuit.  I'm sure proving the ToS violation will not be a major issue but even then there would be (because there always are) instances that show uneven application of the ToS.  Even in these public/private setting that is problematic.

Ignoring that there is the issue of cashing out the station points.  ToS/EULA will not protect SOE here, ban= loss of money (regardless of whatever BS unit it is converted to) shouldn't hold up after seeing how the Paypal fiasco played out.

Station Cash or other RMT is no different than money paid for a subscription.

When banned, you lose the sub and all the money you've paid for the sub up to that point. In order to rule in favor of giving station cash payments back, they'd have to rule to give all sub fees back also.

And then you might as well plan on never seeing another mmo again.

Not to mention every other service with a fee out there ( such as internet access ), as people could find ways to get banned and get all their money back.

@Zorvan- not at all.  In the case of a subscription they would only need to pro-rate for paid for services not delivered, for RMT they would only ever be required to refund unused equivilents.

The player at issue has no case:

1)  Although I haven't read it, I would assume that he was banned due to violation of the EULA at issue, which means it probably had a forfeiture provision in it.   I also wouldn't be surprised if it had a provision mandating mandatory arbitration over disputes, which means his case would be kicked out of court until he went through the arbitration procedures.

2)  The First Amendment prohibits Congress (and by way of the 14th Amendment) and the states from infringing on his right of free speech.  The First Amendment has no impact on a non-governmental entity's right to lay the smackdown on him.

Originally posted by rhinok

Source: Ars Technica:

The premise of the lawsuit is that this individual was banned for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech. The case certainly has interesting ramifications in the gaming world if he wins.

~Ripper

Exactly how pathetic does your life have to be to take a company to court for banning you from a gaming service? ROTFLMAO.

Originally posted by ghstwolf

@Zorvan- not at all.  In the case of a subscription they would only need to pro-rate for paid for services not delivered, for RMT they would only ever be required to refund unused equivilents.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood your last post to mean all money paid, not just money for time unused. My mistake.

Then we have to consider that people who just decide they don't like the game and quit ( no bannings ) could and should expect a refund of unused payments as well. Of course, this wouldn't be a bad thing on the consumer's end.

But can you imagine the chaos it could cause some companies when it carries over to other services?

"Hey, I'm calling to cancel my cell phone service. You owe me compensation for 4200 hours of unused rollover minutes.". lol

Originally posted by ghstwolf

Originally posted by Dameonk

Wow... sounds like he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Whoever the idiot is that advised him to file a lawsuit (even if it was himself) should be fired.

 

That is definately a self filed lawsuit.  I'm sure proving the ToS violation will not be a major issue but even then there would be (because there always are) instances that show uneven application of the ToS.  Even in these public/private setting that is problematic.

Ignoring that there is the issue of cashing out the station points.  ToS/EULA will not protect SOE here, ban= loss of money (regardless of whatever BS unit it is converted to) shouldn't hold up after seeing how the Paypal fiasco played out.

At my work i have seen a few inmates who thought they were lawyers. Inevitably when things do not go their way they decide to get a lawyer, usually court appointed, but by the time the judge is so pissed off at the defendants ignorance that its a lost cause. This guy should lose his suit but as one guy said, it is America.

Originally posted by grandpagamer

Originally posted by ghstwolf

Originally posted by Dameonk

Wow... sounds like he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Whoever the idiot is that advised him to file a lawsuit (even if it was himself) should be fired.

 

That is definately a self filed lawsuit.  I'm sure proving the ToS violation will not be a major issue but even then there would be (because there always are) instances that show uneven application of the ToS.  Even in these public/private setting that is problematic.

Ignoring that there is the issue of cashing out the station points.  ToS/EULA will not protect SOE here, ban= loss of money (regardless of whatever BS unit it is converted to) shouldn't hold up after seeing how the Paypal fiasco played out.

At my work i have seen a few inmates who thought they were lawyers. Inevitably when things do not go their way they decide to get a lawyer, usually court appointed, but by the time the judge is so pissed off at the defendants ignorance that its a lost cause. This guy should lose his suit but as one guy said, it is America.

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.  This guy though has no case.  All he can do is challenge the subject matter, and all that will result is for the case to be thrown out/dismissed...Best thing he can do is to get a copy of Black's Law 1-4th edition...6th is iffy, and 7+ are crap.  ps this is not legalise advice, only scum do that (lawyers).  Thankfully, some of us have not sold our souls to the BAR association.

ps.  Lawful and LEGAL are TWO extremely different things.  Ask a debt collection scum about the difference and they will cringe and kick you out.  Lawyers are parasites, they pray on the moronic masses that are clueless.  Statistically it has also been shown that you are more likely to win your case by NOT using the services of the scum brigade.

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Originally posted by rhinok

Source: Ars Technica:

The premise of the lawsuit is that this individual was banned for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech. The case certainly has interesting ramifications in the gaming world if he wins.

It's a complete non-starter.  People have a right to free speech, they do not have a right to use someone else's forum to do it.  Sony owns the forum, Sony makes the rules.  If the individual doesn't like the AUP that they agreed to, they can go elsewhere.

They'll get laughed right out of the courtroom.

All I know is that he won't win. Period.

It's stupid to see that people have been trying to sue companies, which can't be possible to beat as long as you don't break your contract with Sony's TOS and EULA. It's all there, and Sony does have the right to ban him. The mistake now here is just that Sony should have refunded his money. Sony wins for the guy breaking the contract. It's there private property.

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