FukDatShhh.CoM

In a shocking legal decision destined to be enshrined among landmark cases like Brown V. Board of Education and Tom V. Jerry, A judge ruled that banning a gamer from the PlayStation Network is not a violation of the gamer’s First Amendment rights.

Erik Estavillo sued SCEA after he was banned from The PlayStation Network for multiple violations of Sony’s rules while playing Resistance: Fall of Man and posting on Sony’s forums. Estavillo sought $55,000 and an injunction that would keep SCEA from banning any players in any form on the network. According to Estavillo, Sony dealt him pain and suffering, as he is an agoraphobic and the PlayStation Network is his means of social contact. Estavillo also lost the money in his Sony virtual wallet.

Northern District of California District Judge Ronald M. Whyte was unmoved by Estavillo’s entreaties and ruled that there was no First Amendment issue here, before dismissing the case.

Reports that Estavillo stood up in court when the case was dismissed and yelled, “I’m out of order? You’re out of order! This whole damn court is out of order!” are not true at all.

I joke, but this ruling is actually important. Judge Whyte essentially ruled that, unlike malls or “company towns,” gamers don’t have First Amendment rights in virtual space owned by others. It’s not the first time the courts have made this point, but it’s still pretty interesting. Here’s how the judge put it:

Sony’s Network is not similar to a company town. The Network does not serve a substantial portion of a municipality’s functions, but rather serves solely as a forum for people to interact subject to specific contractual terms. Every regulation Sony applies in the Network is confined in scope only to those entertainment services that Sony provides. Although the Network does include “virtual spaces” such as virtual “homes” and a virtual “mall” that are used by a substantial number of users (Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Opp’n. to Dismiss 1), these “spaces” serve solely to enrich the entertainment services on Sony’s private network. In providing this electronic space that users can voluntarily choose to entertain themselves with, Sony is merely providing a robust commercial product, and is not “performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and [standing] in the shoes of the State.” Hudgens, 424 U.S. at 519 (quoting Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568-69 (1972)).

On a semi-related note: Estavillo’s suit claims that Sony is much stricter on bans than either Nintendo or Microsoft. If this is true, I say, “Nice job, Sony.” I like that the company is using its power to protect decent people like me from annoyances caused by jackasses, whingers, griefers, nere-do-wells, ruffians, cads, bounders and creeps. Especially the bounders. Eff those guys.

You can read Estavillo’s dismissed complaint here and the full ruling here.

Source: G4tv.com