Lol, you knew the context. Very little outside of actual calling for harm (eg: “I hate x group of people and wish they would just die”) can truly be a “call to action.” Even today, people misconstrue stupid little trolls online for being a massive, organized call to harm a marginilized group. They’re not.
True, it is their platform, their space. But we live in a society (meme notwithstanding) that tries its very best to give people platforms to speak. Sure, the government can’t (in theory) silence you, and neither should corporations (yet they do).
Shilling for a corporation on the topic of a basic human right also isn’t a good look.
There is no “but.” The moment you agree to their terms to use and be in their space, they can tell you that you can’t say something and enforce it. Don’t like it? Leave.
No you don’t and it’s because of what this person well did and it goes further then what was the last straw it seems like why I’m not mentioning names or specifics on their behaviour.
Corporations have Terms of Service and Codes of Conduct that they enforce; break those and face the consequences at your own risk. Though I agree sometimes they go beyond what is covered by the legality of their documents.
I’m not getting paid, and I don’t know the full context of this specific instance. I’m sorry you think laying out the objective framework for a discussion such as this appears as “shilling” to you. Pull back from the black and red pills for just a minute.
How so? What makes it “disingenuous”? Your white text doesn’t make your lack of reply more of a reply.
So, can I come to your home, say anything…and I mean anything at all that I want, without you having any legal cause to ask me to leave? What about if law enforcement comes to your home…are they permitted to use ANY speech without repercussions?
Your stance is severely flawed. Hence why the law only is there to protect public speech, your own opinion, against GOVERNMENT, from being impeeded.
There’s no wiggle room the way the question is framed. The answer is obvious. The OP is not asking about speech in game, or in the forums. He is asking about speech on social media. ActiBlizz does not own these social media platforms, it does not have any authority on them. Regardless of any arm-twisty ToS agreements (which would not stand up in a court of law in any case in large part due to how coercive they are) there is no “Blizzard’s platform, muh corporate rights” argument to be made here.
The only question is whether the corporation has a right to punish you for saying what it doesn’t like. This is violation of the principle of Freedom of Speech in the purest sense. To those saying “Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean Freedom from Consequences”, I would argue you are completely incorrect and have no idea what the sum and substance of the First Amendment even amounts to.
Right, but your analogy comparing a private home to a powerful corporation that holds some sway is flawed. For public forums (Twitter, Facebook, whatever), there should NOT be any restrictions on speech. Especially in regards to Twitter, it is marketed as a public forum where people can voice their thoughts.
Cracking down on that, silencing people on a public forum, even though it is run by a corporation, is vehemently wrong. Like, I don’t know why this is hard for you.
He wasn’t banned from playing WoW not yet anyway takes it in game he might he was banned from Esports after multiple warnings.
This is Blizzard saying they do not want to be associated with him or his actions similar stuff happens in physical sports like a player gets drunk starts a fight creating PR nightmare they’re liable to be removed.