Rock Paper Shotgun reports:
As reported by PennLive, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has affirmed the district court's decision that a Pennsylvania man was not discriminated against by being "muted" in an online game.
Amro Elansari filed his original complaint against developer Jagex in July 2019, claiming they "violated his rights to free speech and due process of law." The suit was dismissed by the district court, a decision that has now been upheld by the appeals court for the 3rd Circuit.
Elansari was "muted" in an unnamed online game in March of 2019, according to his "largely handwritten" complaint, says PennLive. Given his suit names Jagex and that Elansari "claimed he had 2,000 hours invested in the game when he was booted out," it seems to follow that he had his account muted in some version of RuneScape.
...
The appeals court says that Elansari has not named a "state actor" for his Fourteenth Amendment claim. His complaint under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was also dismissed with no evidence of a "public accommodations discrimination."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ken_g6 on Sunday January 26 2020, @04:31AM (5 children)
As I understand it, without section 230, a company can be held liable for its users' comments if it moderates them. This leaves a company two choices: No moderation or complete moderation - vetting every comment.
If I'm misunderstanding, please set us straight.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Sunday January 26 2020, @05:46PM (4 children)
At that point, you'll see a drastic reduction in posts that violate laws. It was the whole "anonymous posting is freedom of speech, and removing that infringes on freedom of speech" argument that required section 230 in the first place. It was the wrong decision. Just ban anonymous posts on the internet. You still are free to say anything you want, including making death threats and posting kiddie porn - but you'll also pay the consequences. Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Monday January 27 2020, @02:21AM (1 child)
Well, duh! You'll see a drastic reduction in ANY kind of post that might be considered controversial. Many people will stop speaking their opinions and say nothing at all.
The chilling effects of such policies are a boon to any government, group, or person that wishes to silence others that disagree with them. You forget that simply criticizing the government can land you in jail.
A Moroccan court sentenced a rapper to a year in prison for insulting police. [moroccoworldnews.com]
Insulting the king in Thailand could put you away for three to fifteen years, per count. [wikipedia.org]
So sure, let's force everyone to put their real names on everything they've ever said. Let's sink people's careers decades after they said something stupid as a teenager. Let's punish people for daring to have a contrary opinion to the public at large. Silencing them isn't enough!</sarcasm>
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday January 27 2020, @03:07AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 27 2020, @04:22PM (1 child)
That's just nuts, essentially, you'd be punishing the non-disruptive users.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday January 27 2020, @05:34PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.