If you exist in a medium where one thing can be banned, then you automatically run the risk of anything being banned. Its not my opinion, its human nature.
If Blizzard has a list of 10 words you cannot type, what is stopping people from asking for 5 more, then 5 more after that. The entire time, claiming that their form of oppression is just as valid as those who got the original 10 words banned.
Literally, free speech if you want it to be 100% correct, is all or nothing.
I’m not saying you can’t report - I’m explaining why it exists outside of someone just raging
That isn’t my point.
I have never typed EZ or claimed anything was Cancer, or AIDS, or any other term that doesn’t describe the reality of the situation.
My point is, you cannot stand for free speech, and also stand for censorship of any kind. It makes you a hypocrite.
Not to mention, no one forces you to read or care about things others say in a video game, or on line in general.
Free speech should exclude harassement, racism and so forth.
There’s a staircase, not everything is on the same level.
You can’t compare everything as if it’s the same, it might fall in the same category but is in a whole different set.
But in that case we won’t ask for free speech but a specific ruleset to follow.
I mean after all, do all games need to have freedom of speech?
Rules are fine as is, nothing wrong with not having full free speech.
Yea just wanted to make sure.
My point is that while a large portion of the player base might be in the US, the combined number of players outside of the US is much larger. I don’t know the exact numbers but I wouldn’t stretch the US player base further than being about 20-25% of the total.
There is nothing in my post that refrains from people using it. I am just conveying how it looks upon that individual.
They are the low of the low.
I will agree with this statement, but only after you get rid of the word free.
Freedom doesn’t have a disclaimer.
Hyperbole. We aren’t talking about who should or shouldn’t have access to free speech. If everyone has access there is no staircase. Claiming that there is, definitively means you are placing people in different boxes. Meaning, you are pro segregation.
Edit: may have read this incorrectly. If you are talking about different words being on a staircase of hurtfulness, then I would also disagree, but in a different way. What you are talking about here is divide and conquer. If you make some words more hurtful then others, you can instill a hierarchy of painful speech. It forces people to view words as ammunition where some words are higher caliber then others. The reason this is incorrect is, all words travel at the same speed and are understood at the same juncture for each person. You always have the option not to listen.
Speech is its own individual entity. I am not comparing “everything”.
I am not claiming that you should participate in activities which do not guarantee free speech. In fact, I claim the opposite. If you want to, I won’t stop you. It doesn’t mean you can claim the moniker of “free speech” for the activities you interact in.
This is fine. I have no opinion in this regard as I just don’t care what people refer to in the games they play.
However, I believe you should be 100% able to voice your opinion of people being the low of the low for using such derogatory terms, as much as the people using the terms.
Don’t say ez, it’s rude and mean
Just accept your win and move on like a decent human being 
That doesn’t make it right. Cheating is a way to win more. It’s been around long before gaming was. Doesn’t make it right.
Report system working as intended. If you don’t want to be banned, then don’t be a poor sport.
It’s pretty simple, actually
Once again stuff like this would easily be avoided if they would remove All Chat except for custom games like in Heroes of The Storm. No All Chat = / = Team Chat before you complain.
Hard disagree. There either is free speech or there isn’t. Everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want without criminal consequences, unless they’re encouraging violence or harm. The rest is on the individuals to decide how to deal with opinions they disagree with and what they will allow on their own, privately owned platforms and what policies have. Sort of like a privately owned video game company creating multiplayer games with strong social interactions can decide what kind of social environment their games will have, and enforce their policies within the boundaries of the company and their individual games.
What happens when the companies become monolithic entities which control the viewing habits of 1/5th of the planets population? When these companies consume the standard practice to speak out against negative effects on humanity.
Do we just go, “whelp, private company, just let them control the way people think. Its against the law to make sure they are fair.”
No, Blizzard isn’t in this category. But, to invoke the status of “private company” is to lump all of them into the same unit.
Except free speech doesn’t mean you get to spew whatever hateful rhetoric you want with no consequences, regardless of how hateful you feel you’re being.
A privately owned company not letting you say derogatory slurs does not mean your right to free speech has been infringed. If the government is silencing you or making laws to silence you, then it is. A video game not letting you say “easy” to the enemy after beating them is not.
If it is truly free, then yes it very much does.
As has been stated many times. Privately owned companies are not legally bound to uphold the rights of the individual for free speech. Its just not a good idea to infringe on it. The consequence should be that the company can no longer function due to backlash from their censorship. Problem is, people aren’t smart enough anymore to realize this.
Only the federal government, and only in The United States.
Pretty much exactly what I said. You should be able to “spew whatever hateful rhetoric you want” without criminal consequences. Social and other consequences are another thing.
There are always some consequences to everything, especially speech, positive or negative.
This is such an elementary way to see things though. The Federal Government provided the means to build the infrastructure that all media companies use.
Shouldn’t the laws of the Federal Government apply to the infrastructure they built?
Censorship only appeals to emotional response, where the law governs the people on equal grounds. It seems faulty to apply one form of law to people and one form of law to corporations.
I’m talking about the idea and concept of free speech free of particular laws and governments. The only two things laws should affect are the right itself and speech that encourages harm and violence.
In terms of free speech there should of course just be a single standard. That means that the people in charge of a private company should be allowed to decide what environment and ideals will and will not be tolerated in their own product. If they aren’t allowed to do this, then their right to free speech is being violated.
this context doesn’t make your situation any better, nor does it make anyone else sympathize with you