Petition: Falcomist's ban

[Lady-Loki]

I'm not sure you understand law.

A set of terms for service, or a contract can in no way violate the law. Even if you have agreed to it, it is still illegal.

With concrete evidence that the terms violate the law, you will win the case.

Most amataur law practioners dont get that when a case is brought to the court, it does not depend on the other factors such as agreement. It simply addresses the reason its taken to court in the first place.

For instance I could draft a contract saying:

A) You forfeight your human rights
B) You forfeight the ability to move freely
C) You forfeight the right to speak freely
D) This agreement is subject to change at any time.

And you can agree to it, but a judge would still find it illegal on my part.

Regardless of "Freedom of Speech" there are also Harassment Laws that have been upheld in court where employers are under court order to ensure a workplace that is free of harassment based on sexual, racial, and religious, on and on. The courts upheld the Harassment Law over the "Freedom of Speech".

In raw terms, there isn't "absolute" freedom of speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you'll get arrested.

Theoretically, you are free to speak your mind without fear of retribution. On the other hand: With the way our society has become, some things you are NOT free to say. "Hate speech" i.e. racial comments as an example.

But this issue has nothing to do with Constitutional rights or “Freedom of Speech”. It is solely a matter of Outspark enforcing the TOS. If you don't abide by them, then Outspark can, at their discretion, perma-ban you. And I do not really think anyone plans to take them to court, so, the TOS is pretty much the law in this case. And, I also believe that if Falcomist took them to court Outspark would win because based on whatever screenies they had submitted, he violated their TOS in regards to some form of racial slur, and like an employer, Outspark has an obligation and a right to ensure a game environment that is free of harassment based on sexual, racial, religious, on and on.

[+Tequila+]

technically the internet is not governed by the bill of rights. There are really no laws as to what you can and can't do on the internet which is why things like private servers , free movie sites and other things can exist there. So if a company wants to set a english only rule they can. My stepdad and his wife work for the FBI and I've spoken to them many times on this subject and they've always said the same thing as what Loki has stated.

[MaxOff]

technically the internet is not governed by the bill of rights. There are really no laws [..]

that is incorrect, the internet law is the law of the local country.
Yet the internet has no country boarders in it, so u are right in an indirect way.

[Ralath]

But if you really want to get legal, I present:

Roth v. United States

Basically:

1. Obscenity is not protected by the U.S. Constitution
2. Obscenity is defined by community standards.

But even if you do go on to read to the bottom a little further about Miller v. California (which I hope you do), it says that obscenity is protected under the First Amendment unless distributed to minors and unwilling third parties.

Falcomist broadcast his speech into public. Therefore, First Amendment does not protect him.

Ahem.

:3

[Guest]

But if you really want to get legal, I present:

Roth v. United States

Basically:

1. Obscenity is not protected by the U.S. Constitution
2. Obscenity is defined by community standards.

But even if you do go on to read to the bottom a little further about Miller v. California (which I hope you do), it says that obscenity is protected under the First Amendment unless distributed to minors and unwilling third parties.

Falcomist broadcast his speech into public. Therefore, First Amendment does not protect him.

Ahem.

:3

Oh, the First Amendment doesn't apply in public? That makes a lot of sense.

Protecting unpopular (ie obscene) speech is the whole purpose of the First Amendment, speech that doesn't offend doesn't need protecting.

The First Amendment is supposed to apply to any speech in anywhere, regardless of the current legal interpretation which changes so drastically and so often its a joke. Ever heard of Lenny Bruce?

The real issue here is that Outsparks servers are not public, but the private property of Outspark and they can ban anyone they want for any reason. You can picket in the street in front of my house, but you can't picket on my lawn. Some private property has been ruled protected by the First Amendment in some cases, such as malls, but so far that doesn't apply to privately owned websites/servers.

[AngellicDiety]

Regardless of "Freedom of Speech" there are also Harassment Laws that have been upheld in court where employers are under court order to ensure a workplace that is free of harassment based on sexual, racial, and religious, on and on. The courts upheld the Harassment Law over the "Freedom of Speech".

In raw terms, there isn't "absolute" freedom of speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you'll get arrested.

Theoretically, you are free to speak your mind without fear of retribution. On the other hand: With the way our society has become, some things you are NOT free to say. "Hate speech" i.e. racial comments as an example.

But this issue has nothing to do with Constitutional rights or “Freedom of Speech”. It is solely a matter of Outspark enforcing the TOS. If you don't abide by them, then Outspark can, at their discretion, perma-ban you. And I do not really think anyone plans to take them to court, so, the TOS is pretty much the law in this case. And, I also believe that if Falcomist took them to court Outspark would win because based on whatever screenies they had submitted, he violated their TOS in regards to some form of racial slur, and like an employer, Outspark has an obligation and a right to ensure a game environment that is free of harassment based on sexual, racial, religious, on and on.

Yes while that is all true,

I merely commented on the fact that you said a contract and terms of service can have anything in it and it must be upheld.

A contract in its most general form still cannot violate the law, which you had implied in the post previous.

Whilst, your arguments are sound, and are correct, I think you misunderstood what it was I was commenting about.

technically the internet is not governed by the bill of rights. There are really no laws as to what you can and can't do on the internet which is why things like private servers , free movie sites and other things can exist there. So if a company wants to set a english only rule they can. My stepdad and his wife work for the FBI and I've spoken to them many times on this subject and they've always said the same thing as what Loki has stated.

Unfortunately, that is not entire true.

Whilst the internet is not technically governed by law, the hosts, web sites, specifically the hard-ware server that resides within a country is subject to that countries law.

Unfortunately, your stepdad was only commenting on the cases overseas' and outside of the United States of America, whereby the FBI has no real power to enforce anything.

But, over domestic related issues they have full authority.

Dont believe me? Its simple, start up warez site within the United states, make it popular, and you will have law-enforcement at your door for violating domestic copyright laws.

[+Tequila+]

Yes while that is all true,

I merely commented on the fact that you said a contract and terms of service can have anything in it and it must be upheld.

A contract in its most general form still cannot violate the law, which you had implied in the post previous.

Whilst, your arguments are sound, and are correct, I think you misunderstood what it was I was commenting about.



Unfortunately, that is not entire true.

Whilst the internet is not technically governed by law, the hosts, web sites, specifically the hard-ware server that resides within a country is subject to that countries law.

Unfortunately, your stepdad was only commenting on the cases overseas' and outside of the United States of America, whereby the FBI has no real power to enforce anything.

But, over domestic related issues they have full authority.

Dont believe me? Its simple, start up warez site within the United states, make it popular, and you will have law-enforcement at your door for violating domestic copyright laws.

Private servers based in the U.S? RF Addiction and RFPoA to name a few? Private servers are quite popular i nthe us and violate all kinds of *domestic* copyright laws but nothing can really be done to them because of certain stipulations.

[Nicky_Dude]

i dont think he should be banned permanently cuz he probably didnt mean wat he meant to do and was a complete axedent

[SKiNG]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread. But this situation is still under discussion internally. I cannot divulge any information at this time so please do not ask the GMs since they are not involved with this matter anymore.

Thanks

[Meek]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread. But this situation is still under discussion internally. I cannot divulge any information at this time so please do not ask the GMs since they are not involved with this matter anymore.

Thanks

Wow awesome, I'm glad that you guys are at least discussing the issue. Give them a second chance, when people get angry and upset they say things they don't mean. Kudos to you Sking.