Nope. Freedom of speech only protects people from censorship by the government. It does not, however, protect them from the consequences of what they said. And it does not typically apply to privately owned corporations like ABK.
2 Likes
He signed a contract that made him a representative of Blizzard in the public image just like a football player signs a contract that makes them a representative of the team they play for.
If the player does something thats bad PR and reflects poorly on the people they signed a contract with they’ll usually get a warning and a minor punishment do it again and the contract will be revoked and they’re reputation amongst that industry forever tainted as no ones gonna offer a contract to someone who will make them look bad in the public eye.
4 Likes
Yes. And for good reason. Not sure if you’re aware of this, but the First Amendment was written into law a bare two years after being codified into law in France during the early days of the French Revolution. It turns out that governments didn’t want their citizens to turn up in mobs with torches and pitchforks to march their leaders off to be guillotined.
In the case of the principle of Freedom of Speech, it’s actually much older. It predates most of the other Enlightenment Human Rights because it’s necessary for Democracy. Its origins can be traced back to ancient greece, specifically Athens. Really if you want older rights than those you’d have to start digging around in the Hammurabian Code looking at Property Rights.
I don’t think there’s any shame in acknowledging one’s limitations, even if I happen to have my own opinion.
Mostly due to people trying to change the definition of things that should not be redefined. And what has that gotten us? Chaos. A kind of chaos that noone wants, noone is willing to pay for, and thus is unsupportable. So, things will either correct back to the way they were peacefully, or they will do so violently. Let’s hope it’s the former because a replay of the French Revolution on American soil would be pretty bloody.
1 Like
How did you manage to type all that but say nothing at all relevant to the discussion at hand?
Start with acknowledging your ego.
Private corporations are not obligated by law to provide platforms at their own expense where anyone and everyone can say whatever they want, broadcast any message they want, regardless of social mores or standards of civility.
If you want to offend people, start your own platform.
3 Likes
Yeah my Childhood was awful and has left me with mental scars that run deep not to mention I’m sensitive to sound if it’s too loud or to low a frequency I will collapse to the ground completely incapacitated clutching my ears in pain.
So basically even if I wanted too I couldn’t which I don’t.
1 Like
My sincere condolences. I hope this doesn’t prevent you from doing what you want to do in life.
2 Likes
You were talking about the need to protect the citizens from the government. I was illustrating the fact that if you don’t the citizens will become enraged and begin beheading government figures. I had thought that was obvious.
Sure. I have an ego. I realize that. I also realize that I’m speaking to an insufferable know-it-all. I figured we could just sort of meet in the middle without things getting ugly. Shows you what I know.
Still a lot of nothing…
You don’t have the right to be on a platform. Period.
The downlow on this is a dude who was already temporarily banned for RMT Arena boosting about this time last year decided that he was going to make some edgelord comments somewhere which specifically broke his contract, and has subsequently been banned from competing in any WoW Esports.
3 Likes
I’m very proud to say I have never fell victim to using that nonsense. Never used Facebook, Myspace, Instagram etc. I agree with Charles Barkley, it is “a place for losers to go and feel important.”
4 Likes
We talking about a certain Warlock?
1 Like
Mmmmmmmyep.
1 Like
I always wonder what “professional” WoW streamers lifes will be like in 10-15 years.
Edit: Not counting the uber successful ones like Asmongold etc.
1 Like
I’d suspend him for that busted wig
1 Like
Well you’re still wrong. The terms of service have been the terms of service. And they are subject to change and even says so in the terms of service.
I get what you’re saying… You’re speaking out of principle but We don’t live in a principled world alone. We live in a legal world that sometimes is based in principles
Are you sure you’re talking about doves here and not their crackhead cousins, pigeons? Because our mourning doves get the absolute snot kicked out of them by teeny tiny house sparrows and nuthatches if they dare wander too close to our bird feeders.
But pigeons? Pigeons will down a fifth of whiskey and have at it with seagulls, jays, pelicans. Pretty much anything but Canadian geese. Not even Chuck Norris wants to fight a Canadian goose.
3 Likes
Eh. To the point, I’ll actually reframe this in a way that maybe we can reach a consensus.
I think we’re in an “Is/Ought” discussion. With Corporate Interest determining the “Is” and Human Rights Principles sidelined as “Ought”. So any argument in favor of corporate prerogatives will have the upper hand de facto. Unfortunately, it will lack moral certitude because corporations don’t care about morality or principles. They care about profit first, last, and always.
One of the main problems with the Constitution is that the founders didn’t foresee the rise of huge multinational corporations. Until something is done to reign them in, this is what we’re going to be stuck with.
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.
2 Likes
-
What you’re describing has nothing to do with The 1A. Freedom of Speech means the Government can’t retaliate or punish you for criticizing it. Sedition, incitement of illegal activity or causing panic, injury, and/or physical damage are excluded.
-
Depends on what is said:
- If the person is using defamatory speech (lies), the company could make a very public example of them by suing for Defamation, but it would cost the company money and monetarily (and likely mentally) ruin the player, where simply banning them from the platform is free, and less harmful.
- If the person was threatening other players, Blizzard employees, or their families, they’re likely threatening people on the platform and shouldn’t be tolerated.
- If the person is breaking the social contract in a thread or responding to a tweet started by a Blizzard employee, like someone else said: you’re free to say whatever you like and Blizzard is free to show you the Find Out phase of the consequences of your actions.
- Blizzard has every right to ban whomever they choose, whenever they choose. It’s their platform. Just as you have every right to bar entry to your home, unless it’s law enforcement with a warrant.
1 Like