What Will Silence Lead To

General Discussion
Prev 1 13 14 15 16 Next
Can a state government pass a law that would violate the First Amendment because they're not Congress. Is a local government bound by it.


No.

Regardless of what the 10th amendment may or may not imply, a state government cannot pass a law that is in breach of the Constitution.

There are several examples of this, Brown vs the Board of Education for one.

Hence, my point, does it apply to any legislative body, or Congress itself solely. Trying to be condescending as though I have no idea what the first amendment or Congress is when neither has any relation to what I was really asking seems to be a bit pointless.


Any law passed in any state that is in possible violation of the US Constitution can and may be challenged in the US Supreme Court.

Heller VS US is another good example.

[Edit: whoever this is, go ahead and prove me wrong. Good luck with that.]
07/16/2016 10:21 PMPosted by Trallara
I'm aware of what Congress is, I even specified that in my post. Does the 1st Amendment only apply to them, or to any legislative body was my question.

Can a state government pass a law that would violate the First Amendment because they're not Congress. Is a local government bound by it.


Curiously, originally it did not. However, one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to expressly state that such protections and limitations applied to state legislatures as well.

This is all tangential to this discussion, though, since corporations aren't "legislative bodies" by any stretch of the imagination.
The idea that the Founding Fathers(tm) had hate speech and harassment on a video game in mind is just so far beyond hilarious. Yes, tell yourself they were thinking of you and fully support all your caustic and vile antics you're afraid you'll get silenced over.

You have no leg to stand on here.
07/16/2016 10:29 PMPosted by Trallara
No worries, I was just curious in the end.

Things like the Second Amendment says that rights shall not be infringed for example, but doesn't say anything about who can't do the infringing. Where-as the First trots out "Congress shall make no law".

Made me curious if technically my local municipality could declare Scientology the official religion or something nonsensical and have it not quite be in the wrong if we were Literalists.


They couldn't. The United States is, at present, a secular nation governmentally speaking. Among the various protections afforded by the FIrst Amendment is the freedom to follow whatever religion you so happen to choose. Neither the Federal government nor State governments can dictate to you what religion you must follow, despite how SOME people in the United States may wish it were otherwise..
07/16/2016 07:06 PMPosted by Notprimal
07/16/2016 07:03 PMPosted by Mòrenn
...

The difference is some people don't consider the ability to verbally assault people as "some of our most precious rights".


Then they are short sighted fools.

Being able to express yourself in whatever manner you choose to do without fear of being punished is what most successful societies are built on.


Don't be a !*@%#%@* - Buddha at some point i'm sure.
there is no free speech issue here.

chat and forums are part of a product we purchase and Blizz has complete control of what happens in them.
Look at Australia's Constitution by comparison

Freedom of speech is IMPLIED, but is not enumerated. It's interesting to see how different nations organised their rights and freedoms.

Kinda a hobby of mine.
You can get arrested for walking into a theatre and shouting "Fire!"

Your entire point is null.
"You can get arrested for walking into a theatre and shouting "Fire!""

Christopher Hitchens begs to differ.
07/16/2016 11:50 PMPosted by Gunzerker
"You can get arrested for walking into a theatre and shouting "Fire!""

Christopher Hitchens begs to differ.


Also, interestingly you can get arrested for walking into a theatre and shouting Admiral Akbar too.
07/16/2016 11:25 PMPosted by Aehl
Look at Australia's Constitution by comparison

Freedom of speech is IMPLIED, but is not enumerated. It's interesting to see how different nations organised their rights and freedoms.

Kinda a hobby of mine.


and in Canada the Charter of humans rights explicitly states that there can be reasonable limits on freedom of expression and speech.

WoW is not played exclusivly in America, but is international.

Why should one nation expect their charter to take precidence over that of another..
American 1st Amendment means nothing to me, while my Charter says there are resonable limits to what you are allowed to say or do. No idea what official China's stance on the matter is but I rather imagine it is somewhat restrictive on matters of Free speech

Short of limiting the game population to national servers the only reasonable action Blizzard can take is to have their Terms of Service be the final authority. Abide by it while playing their game or face whatever punishments they see fit to deal out.
07/16/2016 11:53 PMPosted by Snowfox
07/16/2016 11:50 PMPosted by Gunzerker
"You can get arrested for walking into a theatre and shouting "Fire!""

Christopher Hitchens begs to differ.


Also, interestingly you can get arrested for walking into a theatre and shouting Admiral Akbar too.


thats because everyone should know its a trap
07/16/2016 11:54 PMPosted by Drakmor
the only reasonable action Blizzard can take is to have their Terms of Service be the final authority.


Actually, the Terms of Service (or possibly the EULA, I don't care enough to look this up specifically) addresses this. If you read through it sometime you'll find a section on "choice of jurisdiction". What that means is that if you want to sue or otherwise take action against Blizzard, you have to do so in the jurisdiction in which they're incorporated, which is obviously in the US, and the laws of that jurisdiction will prevail.

So basically in-game operations have to be according to US law (specifically California law or wherever else they're incorporated) because people outside that jurisdiction sign away their ability to sue anywhere else when they play the game.
07/17/2016 12:01 AMPosted by Fortuna
07/16/2016 11:54 PMPosted by Drakmor
the only reasonable action Blizzard can take is to have their Terms of Service be the final authority.


Actually, the Terms of Service (or possibly the EULA, I don't care enough to look this up specifically) addresses this. If you read through it sometime you'll find a section on "choice of jurisdiction". What that means is that if you want to sue or otherwise take action against Blizzard, you have to do so in the jurisdiction in which they're incorporated, which is obviously in the US, and the laws of that jurisdiction will prevail.

So basically in-game operations have to be according to US law (specifically California law or wherever else they're incorporated) because people outside that jurisdiction sign away their ability to sue anywhere else when they play the game.


Well there you are. If those who feel Blizzard's Silencing function truely is a violation of their 1st amendment rights, perhaps they can sue
So basically in-game operations have to be according to US law (specifically California law or wherever else they're incorporated) because people outside that jurisdiction sign away their ability to sue anywhere else when they play the game.


Wrong.

They are bound to abide by the laws and jurisdictions where the game is sold. The same way that STEAM thought it could get away with violations of our Trade Practices Act...they got one hell of a rude surprise.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/03/valve-found-guilty-of-breaching-australian-consumer-law/

After an 18-month back and forth with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Australian Federal Court has finally ruled that Valve was in breach of Australian Consumer Law.

The ACCC’s major issue with Valve was its lack of a refund policy, which ran contrary to Australian Consumer law. Valve has since implemented its own refund policy in the wake of this case, but had no refund policy in August 2014 when the ACCC initially sued.

Valve’s defence was based around the fact that it doesn’t officially conduct business in Australia, only admitting it provided access to an online access portal to video games through a client. Valve denied this falls into the definition of ‘goods’ in Australian consumer law. Valve also maintained the Steam Subscriber Agreement is the law of the State of Washington, United States of America — not the law of Australia.

**********But the Australian Federal court disagreed, and found that Valve made misleading statements to consumers in its terms and conditions contained in three versions of its Steam Subscriber Agreement and two versions of its Steam Refund Policy. These misleading statements all focused on the rights of Australian consumers to a refund if they’ve been sold a faulty or defective product.*************

*******Justice Edelman that Valve was doing business in Australia and, as such, was bound to operate within Australian Consumer Law.*********

“The Federal Court’s decision reinforces that foreign based businesses selling goods and/or services to Australian consumers can be subject to Australian Consumer Law obligations, including the consumer guarantees,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“In this case, Valve is a US company operating mainly outside Australia, but, in making representations to Australian consumers, the Federal Court has found that Valve engaged in conduct in Australia. It is also significant that the Court held that, in any case, based on the facts, Valve was carrying on business in Australia.

“This is also the first time Courts have applied the extended definition of ‘goods’ to include “computer software” in the ACL. It will provide greater certainty where digital goods are supplied to consumers through online platforms.”

“Consumer issues in the online marketplace are a priority for the ACCC and we will continue to take appropriate enforcement action to hold businesses accountable for breaches of the ACL.”

Initially, in August 2014, the ACCC asked that Valve:

• Provide an email address that specifically deals with refunds as per Australian Consumer law.
• Provide a 1800 number to help consumers address any refund issues.
• Provide a PO Box address for consumers to deal with refunds.
• Appoint representatives (the ACCC refer to this person as a contact officer) to reply to consumers regarding refunds.


Back then Doug Lombardi informed Kotaku that Valve was “making every effort to cooperate with the Australian officials on this matter.”

No set amount was decided in terms of liability at the judgement, but there is a chance that, in addition to any liability, Valve will have to pay up to 75% of the ACCC’s legal costs


So no, the fact that anyone anywhere thinks that we "sign away our rights" is woefully ignorant.
07/17/2016 12:06 AMPosted by Drakmor
Well there you are. If those who feel Blizzard's Silencing function truely is a violation of their 1st amendment rights, perhaps they can sue


Let's be honest. Nobody is going to sue. We will complain and then find a new topic. Plenty to pick from in the next couple months.
07/16/2016 09:38 PMPosted by Degnawth
2.)politic's.
3.)religion.
4.)ranting about rule's and/or future permanent updates to rules.


According to who? You?

07/16/2016 09:38 PMPosted by Degnawth
use trade chat to trade items.


Trade chat isn't exclusive to TRADE ONLY. THE CHAT NAMES ARE MERELY SUGGESTION ONLY

https://twitter.com/BlizzardCS/status/753333158993616897
Well the other day in Australia a guy on TV referred to a woman as acting "hysterical" and the feminist brigade was all over him tearing him down, as apparently accusing a woman of behaving in a "hysterical" way is sexist and offensive now,

To me, it's just a word, and I never used the word in a sexist manner, but apparently it's now a word that men have used for thousands of years to shut women up. I never knew that.
interesting movie called "Hysteria" that may expand your understanding of the term.
07/17/2016 04:04 AMPosted by Demues


Trade chat isn't exclusive to TRADE ONLY. THE CHAT NAMES ARE MERELY SUGGESTION ONLY

https://twitter.com/BlizzardCS/status/753333158993616897


Trade really should still be meant for trade and anything about the game. people get put down for asking real questions in trade while people rant and yell most of the day.

If you start asking me about religion in game you better be asking my option on Elune.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum