So what we've established is if you're using a company's product, and you use that company's product in a way they don't appreciate, the company may ban you from use of that product.
If AT & T hears you shit talking their service they can cut off your service, because it is bad for business.
If use the Electric Company's energy to make flyers condemning their use of coal they can cut off your service, because you know, it is bad for business.
If a flight attendant on Delta sees that you are laughing at a racially insensitive meme on your cell phone you can be escorted from the flight (she'll also call your service provider and have you banned) and banned from flying with Delta because they don't want to be associated with you.
If your internet provider doesn't it like it that you're using their product to promote gaming at MMORPG.com then they can cut off your service because games use bandwidth, huge bandwidth usage is bad for business, and so off you go.
If you've had an abortion or are gay they can ban you from using their service because they're a family oriented company and you may be bad for business.
I'm not really comfortable with that arrangement, apparently many people are.
"In a later case that directly relates to the woman recently dismissed from her leadership position in the Boy Scouts, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale(2000) that the Boy Scouts could revoke the membership of a former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster (James Dale) when it found out that Dale was a homosexual and a gay-rights activist. To force the Boy Scouts to do otherwise abridged the organization’s right to freedom of association. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the majority opinion,
Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire."
So what we've established is if you're using a company's product, and you use that company's product in a way they don't appreciate, the company may ban you from use of that product.
If AT & T hears you shit talking their service they can cut off your service, because it is bad for business.
If use the Electric Company's energy to make flyers condemning their use of coal they can cut off your service, because you know, it is bad for business.
If a flight attendant on Delta sees that you are laughing at a racially insensitive meme on your cell phone you can be escorted from the flight (she'll also call your service provider and have you banned) and banned from flying with Delta because they don't want to be associated with you.
If your internet provider doesn't it like it that you're using their product to promote gaming at MMORPG.com then they can cut off your service because games use bandwidth, huge bandwidth usage is bad for business, and so off you go.
If you've had an abortion or are gay they can ban you from using their service because they're a family oriented company and you may be bad for business.
I'm not really comfortable with that arrangement, apparently many people are.
If a company doesn't want me using their service or product because they don't like what I have to say, then I wouldn't be interested in using their product or service anyway. I'd simply switch to another one. Try keeping on topic with the incident in question though, otherwise the thread will be locked in short order.
So what we've established is if you're using a company's product, and you use that company's product in a way they don't appreciate, the company may ban you from use of that product.
If AT & T hears you shit talking their service they can cut off your service, because it is bad for business.
If use the Electric Company's energy to make flyers condemning their use of coal they can cut off your service, because you know, it is bad for business.
If a flight attendant on Delta sees that you are laughing at a racially insensitive meme on your cell phone you can be escorted from the flight (she'll also call your service provider and have you banned) and banned from flying with Delta because they don't want to be associated with you.
If your internet provider doesn't it like it that you're using their product to promote gaming at MMORPG.com then they can cut off your service because games use bandwidth, huge bandwidth usage is bad for business, and so off you go.
If you've had an abortion or are gay they can ban you from using their service because they're a family oriented company and you may be bad for business.
I'm not really comfortable with that arrangement, apparently many people are.
The streamer agreed to the Jagex ToS/EULA, and Jagex determined that he broke part of that ToS/EULA, so they banned him.
If a company let's you use their product/service based on adhering to a ToS/EULA, and you agree to that, they have a right to refuse you further use if you go against it, it is that simple.
Any time you play any game, you agree to all of that, so if you are not comfortable with that, stop playing games.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Are you implying telling a suicidal person to kill themselves is on the same moral level as being gay, or that religions support suicide in the same manner as they disavow homosexuality?
Otherwise, your analogy is uselessly irrelevant.
I don't have to establish moral equivalency as that isn't the topic at hand.
The issue is whether or not a company can distance itself from a customer if the company finds that customer's actions to be immoral OR bad for the company's image.
If it true that company may do that then Jagex is fine. If it is NOT true that company may do that then Jagex is in the wrong.
I'm just wondering if the people supporting Jagex in this case have thought through the implications of their support.
If you claim that Jagex is okay to do this and the bakery is wrong then the principal being followed has nothing to do with the law, freedom of association or any of that nonsense but rather on personal bias.
I want a country based on law, not on personal bias.
Are you implying telling a suicidal person to kill themselves is on the same moral level as being gay, or that religions support suicide in the same manner as they disavow homosexuality?
Otherwise, your analogy is uselessly irrelevant.
I don't have to establish moral equivalency as that isn't the topic at hand.
The issue is whether or not a company can distance itself from a customer if the company finds that customer's actions to be immoral OR bad for the company's image.
If it true that company may do that then Jagex is fine. If it is NOT true that company may do that then Jagex is in the wrong.
I'm just wondering if the people supporting Jagex in this case have thought through the implications of their support.
If you claim that Jagex is okay to do this and the bakery is wrong then the principal being followed has nothing to do with the law, freedom of association or any of that nonsense but rather on personal bias.
I want a country based on law, not on personal bias.
The bakery has nothing to do with association. It's freedom of religion that comes into play primarily in that instance. Which is where my post asking you why you thought those were the same issues came from.
The courts are weighing the bakery's actions on the basis of impeding upon their religious beliefs, not merely an association.
EDIT- it's also pertinent that the bakery is offering a product, not a membership of any kind.
Are you implying telling a suicidal person to kill themselves is on the same moral level as being gay, or that religions support suicide in the same manner as they disavow homosexuality?
Otherwise, your analogy is uselessly irrelevant.
I don't have to establish moral equivalency as that isn't the topic at hand.
The issue is whether or not a company can distance itself from a customer if the company finds that customer's actions to be immoral OR bad for the company's image.
If it true that company may do that then Jagex is fine. If it is NOT true that company may do that then Jagex is in the wrong.
I'm just wondering if the people supporting Jagex in this case have thought through the implications of their support.
If you claim that Jagex is okay to do this and the bakery is wrong then the principal being followed has nothing to do with the law, freedom of association or any of that nonsense but rather on personal bias.
I want a country based on law, not on personal bias.
The bakery has nothing to do with association. It's freedom of religion that comes into play primarily in that instance. Which is where my post asking you why you thought those were the same issues came from.
The courts are weighing the bakery's actions on the basis of impeding upon their religious beliefs, not merely an association.
EDIT- it's also pertinent that the bakery is offering a product, not a membership of any kind.
Don't run off into the weeds like this - there is no substantive difference between the bakery case and the Jagex case - I provided you with many examples that would fit the freedom of association definition (electric company, phone service, airlines).
If you don't want to be consistent in your views, own it. Don't quibble over this silly minutia to hide it.
Can the bakery turn down a cake that says, "Kill yourself?" Can JagEx ban a streamer for promoting homosexuality?
If you want your decisions to be based on your personal preferences instead of the law just say that and stop with the intellectual gerrymandering. Clearly you expect people to put up with your shit while being punished for stuff you find to be offensive.
WargfootYV said: Logical consistency looks that way until you try it.
It can actually set you free.
There is no consistency, logical or otherwise, in what you posted.
This thread is about a streamer who's actions resulted in him being banned from a game, and a streaming platform. nothing more.
Nothing about that has anything to do with gay couple's, or a small bakery refusing them service.
Please review MadFrenchie's fine contribution. Freedom of Association - cannot have one without the other.
Ok, I will say it one more time, maybe, just maybe, this time you will read it, and understand it.
The streamer agreed to a ToS/EULA, he broke that ToS/EULA, and was banned for it.
Nothing else has anything to do with this, at all.
No matter how many times you post irrelevancies, it does not, and will not change that fact.
Pfft, don't pretend you've read the ToS/EULA. You're just about saving face after inconsistencies in your views have been exposed.
I'm sure I don't care who Jagex bans and for what reasons. ^-- Read and comprehend that.
I'm interested in the consistency of the Twitter MOBS and self-righteous rage-a-holics and you're wanting to drill down into a ToS/EULA nobody reads?
What inconsistencies? I have said the same thing over and over, you just do not seem to comprehend it, and there is nothing I have said that I need to save face about.
Reading or not reading the ToS/EULA has nothing to do with it, they exist, we all agree to them each time we click play, and we can, and should, all be held to them.
And for someone who does not care about Jagex banning someone, or why, you sure have posted a lot of crap in a thread about it.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Are you implying telling a suicidal person to kill themselves is on the same moral level as being gay, or that religions support suicide in the same manner as they disavow homosexuality?
Otherwise, your analogy is uselessly irrelevant.
I want a country based on law, not on personal bias.
I've seen a few posts completely ignoring the fact that this isn't a country specific issue. Jagex is a UK company. The internet is a world based platform, please don't assume that because you and the idiot who did it are American its only an American relevant issue.
I believe the companies' right to ban him isn't up for the debate. They are doing it to protect their image, that's fine, they have the right. But are they protecting their image from irrational accusations or rational ones?
If this guy was a professional streamer and has gotten banned from the Twitch basically means he has lost his job. And since that's like the only platform (at least for now) he can't just find another site to stream on, he needs to change his career.
Has he harmed anyone? Does his punishment matches his crime? How much he has to lose for the stupid words he had uttered if he hasn't harmed anyone?
I don't believe in freedom of speech when it comes down to dealing with a suicidal person by the way.
I am just interested in what you guys think, not judging anyone here.
1: I would hold that the company has a right to ban him; however, I don't understand why anyone would equate his behavior as being a reflection of Jagex. That is the part that I find bizarre. Should Ford be able to take your car away if you drive like an idiot - you know, to protect their reputation?
2: I find extra-judicial punishment to be disconcerting. We seem to be devolving into a lynch mob/mob justice approach to punishment in our society and this often doesn't give the condemned side any chance to redeem themselves.
3: Apparently the kid had his microphone muted so he only pretended to tell someone to kill themselves - you know, like how in our movies they pretend to kill people all day long. I'd like to know the substantive difference between pretending to tell someone to kill themselves in a movie and pretending to do it here. Tasteless, sure... but worthy of a mob? I think not.
4: I'd like to know why freedom of speech doesn't cover telling someone to kill themselves but does cover Twitter mobs who destroy people's lives on a daily basis. There seems to be a double standard here.
It seems we have many people in our society that gravitate towards finding "victims" and then turn around and feel justified in unleashing the breath of Smaug on anyone who appears to be adding to the "victims" burdens. Once that dynamic is established any violence directed at the "persecutor" seems justified - no holds barred Inquisitions are launched - people lose jobs, and endlessly mocked, and even threatened with physical harm.
If that is the way you want this to roll, fine, I'll just get the fuck off the internet. I'm a human, I make mistakes, I cannot afford to lose my job just because I used the wrong term.
Sheesh.
1: Ford can't take away your car that you own. However, no one owns their Runescape account, and it can be terminated at any time. As to you not seeing why it would be a reflection of Jagex, this has been covered multiple times in this thread. Will quote my earlier post for your convenience.
He makes his money off Twitch and RuneScape. He won the "Golden Gnome" award from Jagex for best new RuneScape streamer last year. He was streaming RuneScape while the incident in question occurred. As a company, would you really want to be associated with that?
I've also read, though not definitively confirmed, that he was a partnered streamer for Runescape, which would make their position all the more understandable.
3: Whether or not his mic was muted, which he claimed after the fact, is irrelevant. Had the girl been watching the stream, she would have heard what he said even with a muted mic.
4: Freedom of speech is the right to express your point of view without fear of government suppression or retaliation. It has nothing to do with the fact that a company can boot you from their platform at any time if you do or say something stupid.
The streamer was well-known as a popular member of the community. It isn't irrational fear from Jagex.
Rational (or irrational) fear of what exactly? How much do you think people need to get punished on what would've/could've happened?
What seems to be lost on some people here is that he wasn't just banned from a game, he has lost his career.
When your career is based on a direct business relationship with another business, then, well... That's just business.
Nothing entitles any business or entrepeneur to a partnership or business arrangement with another business who doesn't wanna do business with said entity.
Are you implying telling a suicidal person to kill themselves is on the same moral level as being gay, or that religions support suicide in the same manner as they disavow homosexuality?
Otherwise, your analogy is uselessly irrelevant.
I don't have to establish moral equivalency as that isn't the topic at hand.
The issue is whether or not a company can distance itself from a customer if the company finds that customer's actions to be immoral OR bad for the company's image.
If it true that company may do that then Jagex is fine. If it is NOT true that company may do that then Jagex is in the wrong.
I'm just wondering if the people supporting Jagex in this case have thought through the implications of their support.
If you claim that Jagex is okay to do this and the bakery is wrong then the principal being followed has nothing to do with the law, freedom of association or any of that nonsense but rather on personal bias.
I want a country based on law, not on personal bias.
The bakery has nothing to do with association. It's freedom of religion that comes into play primarily in that instance. Which is where my post asking you why you thought those were the same issues came from.
The courts are weighing the bakery's actions on the basis of impeding upon their religious beliefs, not merely an association.
EDIT- it's also pertinent that the bakery is offering a product, not a membership of any kind.
Don't run off into the weeds like this - there is no substantive difference between the bakery case and the Jagex case - I provided you with many examples that would fit the freedom of association definition (electric company, phone service, airlines).
If you don't want to be consistent in your views, own it. Don't quibble over this silly minutia to hide it.
Can the bakery turn down a cake that says, "Kill yourself?" Can JagEx ban a streamer for promoting homosexuality?
If you want your decisions to be based on your personal preferences instead of the law just say that and stop with the intellectual gerrymandering. Clearly you expect people to put up with your shit while being punished for stuff you find to be offensive.
Welcome to the new dark ages.
Sheesh.
Lol your willful ignorance to laws and rights of businesses doesn't make my argument one of personal preference.
I just gave you the substantive difference, yet you ignore it. You'll also note that the SCOTUS actually didn't have a unanimous decision with this; that's because they have to weigh competing freedoms and found that religion was the most important in that context. They do this all the time; your ignorance of it notwithstanding.
Pertinent quote:
"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."
I believe the companies' right to ban him isn't up for the debate. They are doing it to protect their image, that's fine, they have the right. But are they protecting their image from irrational accusations or rational ones?
If this guy was a professional streamer and has gotten banned from the Twitch basically means he has lost his job. And since that's like the only platform (at least for now) he can't just find another site to stream on, he needs to change his career.
Has he harmed anyone? Does his punishment matches his crime? How much he has to lose for the stupid words he had uttered if he hasn't harmed anyone?
I don't believe in freedom of speech when it comes down to dealing with a suicidal person by the way.
I am just interested in what you guys think, not judging anyone here.
1: I would hold that the company has a right to ban him; however, I don't understand why anyone would equate his behavior as being a reflection of Jagex. That is the part that I find bizarre. Should Ford be able to take your car away if you drive like an idiot - you know, to protect their reputation?
2: I find extra-judicial punishment to be disconcerting. We seem to be devolving into a lynch mob/mob justice approach to punishment in our society and this often doesn't give the condemned side any chance to redeem themselves.
3: Apparently the kid had his microphone muted so he only pretended to tell someone to kill themselves - you know, like how in our movies they pretend to kill people all day long. I'd like to know the substantive difference between pretending to tell someone to kill themselves in a movie and pretending to do it here. Tasteless, sure... but worthy of a mob? I think not.
4: I'd like to know why freedom of speech doesn't cover telling someone to kill themselves but does cover Twitter mobs who destroy people's lives on a daily basis. There seems to be a double standard here.
It seems we have many people in our society that gravitate towards finding "victims" and then turn around and feel justified in unleashing the breath of Smaug on anyone who appears to be adding to the "victims" burdens. Once that dynamic is established any violence directed at the "persecutor" seems justified - no holds barred Inquisitions are launched - people lose jobs, and endlessly mocked, and even threatened with physical harm.
If that is the way you want this to roll, fine, I'll just get the fuck off the internet. I'm a human, I make mistakes, I cannot afford to lose my job just because I used the wrong term.
Sheesh.
1: Ford can't take away your car that you own. However, no one owns their Runescape account, and it can be terminated at any time. As to you not seeing why it would be a reflection of Jagex, this has been covered multiple times in this thread. Will quote my earlier post for your convenience.
He makes his money off Twitch and RuneScape. He won the "Golden Gnome" award from Jagex for best new RuneScape streamer last year. He was streaming RuneScape while the incident in question occurred. As a company, would you really want to be associated with that?
I've also read, though not definitively confirmed, that he was a partnered streamer for Runescape, which would make their position all the more understandable.
3: Whether or not his mic was muted, which he claimed after the fact, is irrelevant. Had the girl been watching the stream, she would have heard what he said even with a muted mic.
4: Freedom of speech is the right to express your point of view without fear of government suppression or retaliation. It has nothing to do with the fact that a company can boot you from their platform at any time if you do or say something stupid.
The streamer was well-known as a popular member of the community. It isn't irrational fear from Jagex.
Rational (or irrational) fear of what exactly? How much do you think people need to get punished on what would've/could've happened?
What seems to be lost on some people here is that he wasn't just banned from a game, he has lost his career.
When your career is based on a direct business relationship with another business, then, well... That's just business.
Nothing entitles any business or entrepeneur to a partnership or business arrangement with another business who doesn't wanna do business with said entity.
Mate believe me, I am completely aware of the legal rights of the company. That was never my question.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I believe the companies' right to ban him isn't up for the debate. They are doing it to protect their image, that's fine, they have the right. But are they protecting their image from irrational accusations or rational ones?
If this guy was a professional streamer and has gotten banned from the Twitch basically means he has lost his job. And since that's like the only platform (at least for now) he can't just find another site to stream on, he needs to change his career.
Has he harmed anyone? Does his punishment matches his crime? How much he has to lose for the stupid words he had uttered if he hasn't harmed anyone?
I don't believe in freedom of speech when it comes down to dealing with a suicidal person by the way.
I am just interested in what you guys think, not judging anyone here.
1: I would hold that the company has a right to ban him; however, I don't understand why anyone would equate his behavior as being a reflection of Jagex. That is the part that I find bizarre. Should Ford be able to take your car away if you drive like an idiot - you know, to protect their reputation?
2: I find extra-judicial punishment to be disconcerting. We seem to be devolving into a lynch mob/mob justice approach to punishment in our society and this often doesn't give the condemned side any chance to redeem themselves.
3: Apparently the kid had his microphone muted so he only pretended to tell someone to kill themselves - you know, like how in our movies they pretend to kill people all day long. I'd like to know the substantive difference between pretending to tell someone to kill themselves in a movie and pretending to do it here. Tasteless, sure... but worthy of a mob? I think not.
4: I'd like to know why freedom of speech doesn't cover telling someone to kill themselves but does cover Twitter mobs who destroy people's lives on a daily basis. There seems to be a double standard here.
It seems we have many people in our society that gravitate towards finding "victims" and then turn around and feel justified in unleashing the breath of Smaug on anyone who appears to be adding to the "victims" burdens. Once that dynamic is established any violence directed at the "persecutor" seems justified - no holds barred Inquisitions are launched - people lose jobs, and endlessly mocked, and even threatened with physical harm.
If that is the way you want this to roll, fine, I'll just get the fuck off the internet. I'm a human, I make mistakes, I cannot afford to lose my job just because I used the wrong term.
Sheesh.
1: Ford can't take away your car that you own. However, no one owns their Runescape account, and it can be terminated at any time. As to you not seeing why it would be a reflection of Jagex, this has been covered multiple times in this thread. Will quote my earlier post for your convenience.
He makes his money off Twitch and RuneScape. He won the "Golden Gnome" award from Jagex for best new RuneScape streamer last year. He was streaming RuneScape while the incident in question occurred. As a company, would you really want to be associated with that?
I've also read, though not definitively confirmed, that he was a partnered streamer for Runescape, which would make their position all the more understandable.
3: Whether or not his mic was muted, which he claimed after the fact, is irrelevant. Had the girl been watching the stream, she would have heard what he said even with a muted mic.
4: Freedom of speech is the right to express your point of view without fear of government suppression or retaliation. It has nothing to do with the fact that a company can boot you from their platform at any time if you do or say something stupid.
The streamer was well-known as a popular member of the community. It isn't irrational fear from Jagex.
Rational (or irrational) fear of what exactly? How much do you think people need to get punished on what would've/could've happened?
What seems to be lost on some people here is that he wasn't just banned from a game, he has lost his career.
When your career is based on a direct business relationship with another business, then, well... That's just business.
Nothing entitles any business or entrepeneur to a partnership or business arrangement with another business who doesn't wanna do business with said entity.
Mate believe me, I am completely aware of the legal rights of the company. That was never my question.
Then what you're essentially asking is: does he have a right to inadvertently ruin his own career?
Afaik, the answer is a resounding yes. And speaking from a former Air Traffic Controller perspective, he could've EASILY avoided doing so, much easier than ATCers do on a daily basis.
Lol your willful ignorance to laws and rights of businesses doesn't make my argument one of personal preference.
I just gave you the substantive difference, yet you ignore it. You'll also note that the SCOTUS actually didn't have a unanimous decision with this; that's because they have to weigh competing freedoms and found that religion was the most important in that context. They do this all the time; your ignorance of it notwithstanding.
Pertinent quote:
"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."
I believe the companies' right to ban him isn't up for the debate. They are doing it to protect their image, that's fine, they have the right. But are they protecting their image from irrational accusations or rational ones?
If this guy was a professional streamer and has gotten banned from the Twitch basically means he has lost his job. And since that's like the only platform (at least for now) he can't just find another site to stream on, he needs to change his career.
Has he harmed anyone? Does his punishment matches his crime? How much he has to lose for the stupid words he had uttered if he hasn't harmed anyone?
I don't believe in freedom of speech when it comes down to dealing with a suicidal person by the way.
I am just interested in what you guys think, not judging anyone here.
1: I would hold that the company has a right to ban him; however, I don't understand why anyone would equate his behavior as being a reflection of Jagex. That is the part that I find bizarre. Should Ford be able to take your car away if you drive like an idiot - you know, to protect their reputation?
2: I find extra-judicial punishment to be disconcerting. We seem to be devolving into a lynch mob/mob justice approach to punishment in our society and this often doesn't give the condemned side any chance to redeem themselves.
3: Apparently the kid had his microphone muted so he only pretended to tell someone to kill themselves - you know, like how in our movies they pretend to kill people all day long. I'd like to know the substantive difference between pretending to tell someone to kill themselves in a movie and pretending to do it here. Tasteless, sure... but worthy of a mob? I think not.
4: I'd like to know why freedom of speech doesn't cover telling someone to kill themselves but does cover Twitter mobs who destroy people's lives on a daily basis. There seems to be a double standard here.
It seems we have many people in our society that gravitate towards finding "victims" and then turn around and feel justified in unleashing the breath of Smaug on anyone who appears to be adding to the "victims" burdens. Once that dynamic is established any violence directed at the "persecutor" seems justified - no holds barred Inquisitions are launched - people lose jobs, and endlessly mocked, and even threatened with physical harm.
If that is the way you want this to roll, fine, I'll just get the fuck off the internet. I'm a human, I make mistakes, I cannot afford to lose my job just because I used the wrong term.
Sheesh.
1: Ford can't take away your car that you own. However, no one owns their Runescape account, and it can be terminated at any time. As to you not seeing why it would be a reflection of Jagex, this has been covered multiple times in this thread. Will quote my earlier post for your convenience.
He makes his money off Twitch and RuneScape. He won the "Golden Gnome" award from Jagex for best new RuneScape streamer last year. He was streaming RuneScape while the incident in question occurred. As a company, would you really want to be associated with that?
I've also read, though not definitively confirmed, that he was a partnered streamer for Runescape, which would make their position all the more understandable.
3: Whether or not his mic was muted, which he claimed after the fact, is irrelevant. Had the girl been watching the stream, she would have heard what he said even with a muted mic.
4: Freedom of speech is the right to express your point of view without fear of government suppression or retaliation. It has nothing to do with the fact that a company can boot you from their platform at any time if you do or say something stupid.
The streamer was well-known as a popular member of the community. It isn't irrational fear from Jagex.
Rational (or irrational) fear of what exactly? How much do you think people need to get punished on what would've/could've happened?
What seems to be lost on some people here is that he wasn't just banned from a game, he has lost his career.
When your career is based on a direct business relationship with another business, then, well... That's just business.
Nothing entitles any business or entrepeneur to a partnership or business arrangement with another business who doesn't wanna do business with said entity.
Mate believe me, I am completely aware of the legal rights of the company. That was never my question.
Then what you're essentially asking is: does he have a right to inadvertently ruin his own career?
Afaik, the answer is a resounding yes. And speaking from a former Air Traffic Controller perspective, he could've EASILY avoided doing so, much easier than ATCers do on a daily basis.
No mate, I didn't essentially ask that. What I asked was clear and simple.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Mate believe me, I am completely aware of the legal rights of the company. That was never my question.
Your question won't be answered, or it will be recast as something silly (1), because the implications of any sort of consistency are too painful. These guys will begin to understand your point when the Twitter mob turns on them. The game is now patience, my friend.
NOTES ------------------------------------------------- 1: See the fabricated EULA controversy above.
I believe the companies' right to ban him isn't up for the debate. They are doing it to protect their image, that's fine, they have the right. But are they protecting their image from irrational accusations or rational ones?
If this guy was a professional streamer and has gotten banned from the Twitch basically means he has lost his job. And since that's like the only platform (at least for now) he can't just find another site to stream on, he needs to change his career.
Has he harmed anyone? Does his punishment matches his crime? How much he has to lose for the stupid words he had uttered if he hasn't harmed anyone?
I don't believe in freedom of speech when it comes down to dealing with a suicidal person by the way.
I am just interested in what you guys think, not judging anyone here.
1: I would hold that the company has a right to ban him; however, I don't understand why anyone would equate his behavior as being a reflection of Jagex. That is the part that I find bizarre. Should Ford be able to take your car away if you drive like an idiot - you know, to protect their reputation?
2: I find extra-judicial punishment to be disconcerting. We seem to be devolving into a lynch mob/mob justice approach to punishment in our society and this often doesn't give the condemned side any chance to redeem themselves.
3: Apparently the kid had his microphone muted so he only pretended to tell someone to kill themselves - you know, like how in our movies they pretend to kill people all day long. I'd like to know the substantive difference between pretending to tell someone to kill themselves in a movie and pretending to do it here. Tasteless, sure... but worthy of a mob? I think not.
4: I'd like to know why freedom of speech doesn't cover telling someone to kill themselves but does cover Twitter mobs who destroy people's lives on a daily basis. There seems to be a double standard here.
It seems we have many people in our society that gravitate towards finding "victims" and then turn around and feel justified in unleashing the breath of Smaug on anyone who appears to be adding to the "victims" burdens. Once that dynamic is established any violence directed at the "persecutor" seems justified - no holds barred Inquisitions are launched - people lose jobs, and endlessly mocked, and even threatened with physical harm.
If that is the way you want this to roll, fine, I'll just get the fuck off the internet. I'm a human, I make mistakes, I cannot afford to lose my job just because I used the wrong term.
Sheesh.
1: Ford can't take away your car that you own. However, no one owns their Runescape account, and it can be terminated at any time. As to you not seeing why it would be a reflection of Jagex, this has been covered multiple times in this thread. Will quote my earlier post for your convenience.
He makes his money off Twitch and RuneScape. He won the "Golden Gnome" award from Jagex for best new RuneScape streamer last year. He was streaming RuneScape while the incident in question occurred. As a company, would you really want to be associated with that?
I've also read, though not definitively confirmed, that he was a partnered streamer for Runescape, which would make their position all the more understandable.
3: Whether or not his mic was muted, which he claimed after the fact, is irrelevant. Had the girl been watching the stream, she would have heard what he said even with a muted mic.
4: Freedom of speech is the right to express your point of view without fear of government suppression or retaliation. It has nothing to do with the fact that a company can boot you from their platform at any time if you do or say something stupid.
The streamer was well-known as a popular member of the community. It isn't irrational fear from Jagex.
Rational (or irrational) fear of what exactly? How much do you think people need to get punished on what would've/could've happened?
What seems to be lost on some people here is that he wasn't just banned from a game, he has lost his career.
When your career is based on a direct business relationship with another business, then, well... That's just business.
Nothing entitles any business or entrepeneur to a partnership or business arrangement with another business who doesn't wanna do business with said entity.
Mate believe me, I am completely aware of the legal rights of the company. That was never my question.
Then what you're essentially asking is: does he have a right to inadvertently ruin his own career?
Afaik, the answer is a resounding yes. And speaking from a form Air Traffic Controller perspective, he could've EASILY avoided doing so, much easier than ATCers do on a daily basis.
No mate, I didn't essentially ask that. What I asked was clear and simple.
It is, though. He made a proactive choice that cost him his career. There aren't built in protections against that. There shouldn't be, unless there's extenuating circumstances.
Again, this isn't even unheard of, and there are career fields where you can inadvertently ruin your own career for doing much less. Sometimes, for less than even actions; inaction can do it. As with ATC. A mere oversight can cost you your career. Do you have an issue with this? You haven't mentioned anything of the sort.
His career depended upon his relationship with Twitch and Jagex. It is incumbent upon him to know what behavior his business partners would find unacceptable enough to sever those ties. Personal. Responsibility.
So what we've established is if you're using a company's product, and you use that company's product in a way they don't appreciate, the company may ban you from use of that product.
If AT & T hears you shit talking their service they can cut off your service, because it is bad for business.
If use the Electric Company's energy to make flyers condemning their use of coal they can cut off your service, because you know, it is bad for business.
If a flight attendant on Delta sees that you are laughing at a racially insensitive meme on your cell phone you can be escorted from the flight (she'll also call your service provider and have you banned) and banned from flying with Delta because they don't want to be associated with you.
If your internet provider doesn't it like it that you're using their product to promote gaming at MMORPG.com then they can cut off your service because games use bandwidth, huge bandwidth usage is bad for business, and so off you go.
If you've had an abortion or are gay they can ban you from using their service because they're a family oriented company and you may be bad for business.
I'm not really comfortable with that arrangement, apparently many people are.
Welcome to a corporate-owned society.
I know what you wrote is hyperbole, but your scenario only exists when specific groups own something you only pay to have access to.
As other's have noted though, the person who got banned from Runescae wasn't just some person, they actually regularly streamed Runescape, Jagex even gave them an award for it previously, and they had tagged Runescape in their stream with it also being played in the background.
On top of the fact that Jagex actively funds suicide prevention, this means the person was giving Jagex multiple causes to sever ties with that person as they had and were representing the game, and were going against something they morally stood for.
Mate believe me, I am completely aware of the legal rights of the company. That was never my question.
Your question won't be answered, or it will be recast as something silly (1), because the implications of any sort of consistency are too painful. These guys will begin to understand your point when the Twitter mob turns on them. The game is now patience, my friend.
NOTES ------------------------------------------------- 1: See the fabricated EULA controversy above.
You say you want a country based on law, not personal opinion. I quote the pertinent case law that conflicts with your opinion, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
No mate, I didn't essentially ask that. What I asked was clear and simple.
It is, though. He made a proactive choice that cost him his career. There aren't built in protections against that. There shouldn't be, unless there's extenuating circumstances.
Again, this isn't even unheard of, and there are career fields where you can inadvertently ruin your own career for doing much less. Sometimes, for less than even actions; inaction can do it. As with ATC. A mere oversight can cost you your career. Do you have an issue with this? You haven't mentioned anything of the sort.
His career depended upon his relationship with Twitch and Jagex. It is incumbent upon him to know what behavior his business partners would find unacceptable enough to sever those ties. Personal. Responsibility.
Well, when your "career" is based on a social platform, you're subject to policies surrounding what is socially acceptable by those platforms.
On this very forum we have terms in place where we can get banned for harassing and attacking other people, and many people do get banned for just that.
How much should a person be punished? Same amount as a person who makes a bad decision in any respect in accordance with the "laws" that are in place by whatever "platform" you're on. On twitch and for jagex, it was a ban. If you harass someone in coffee shop, you could be escorted out, banned from the company entirely, or be taken to jail.
Still not sure why people are crying about this, it's like people don't want to be held to a standard of civility. "Why should I have to be nice to other people, why do I get punished for not doing so?" Come on now, what are you truly trying to fight for here? The ability to be a jerk however and to whoever you want?
Comments
If AT & T hears you shit talking their service they can cut off your service, because it is bad for business.
If use the Electric Company's energy to make flyers condemning their use of coal they can cut off your service, because you know, it is bad for business.
If a flight attendant on Delta sees that you are laughing at a racially insensitive meme on your cell phone you can be escorted from the flight (she'll also call your service provider and have you banned) and banned from flying with Delta because they don't want to be associated with you.
If your internet provider doesn't it like it that you're using their product to promote gaming at MMORPG.com then they can cut off your service because games use bandwidth, huge bandwidth usage is bad for business, and so off you go.
If you've had an abortion or are gay they can ban you from using their service because they're a family oriented company and you may be bad for business.
I'm not really comfortable with that arrangement, apparently many people are.
"In a later case that directly relates to the woman recently dismissed from her leadership position in the Boy Scouts, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale(2000) that the Boy Scouts could revoke the membership of a former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster (James Dale) when it found out that Dale was a homosexual and a gay-rights activist. To force the Boy Scouts to do otherwise abridged the organization’s right to freedom of association. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the majority opinion,
If a company let's you use their product/service based on adhering to a ToS/EULA, and you agree to that, they have a right to refuse you further use if you go against it, it is that simple.
Any time you play any game, you agree to all of that, so if you are not comfortable with that, stop playing games.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
The issue is whether or not a company can distance itself from a customer if the company finds that customer's actions to be immoral OR bad for the company's image.
If it true that company may do that then Jagex is fine.
If it is NOT true that company may do that then Jagex is in the wrong.
I'm just wondering if the people supporting Jagex in this case have thought through the implications of their support.
If you claim that Jagex is okay to do this and the bakery is wrong then the principal being followed has nothing to do with the law, freedom of association or any of that nonsense but rather on personal bias.
I want a country based on law, not on personal bias.
Freedom of Association - cannot have one without the other.
The streamer agreed to a ToS/EULA, he broke that ToS/EULA, and was banned for it.
Nothing else has anything to do with this, at all.
No matter how many times you post irrelevancies, it does not, and will not change that fact.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
The courts are weighing the bakery's actions on the basis of impeding upon their religious beliefs, not merely an association.
EDIT- it's also pertinent that the bakery is offering a product, not a membership of any kind.
You're just about saving face after inconsistencies in your views have been exposed.
I'm sure I don't care who Jagex bans and for what reasons.
^-- Read and comprehend that.
I'm interested in the consistency of the Twitter MOBS and self-righteous rage-a-holics and you're wanting to drill down into a ToS/EULA nobody reads?
If you don't want to be consistent in your views, own it.
Don't quibble over this silly minutia to hide it.
Can the bakery turn down a cake that says, "Kill yourself?"
Can JagEx ban a streamer for promoting homosexuality?
If you want your decisions to be based on your personal preferences instead of the law just say that and stop with the intellectual gerrymandering. Clearly you expect people to put up with your shit while being punished for stuff you find to be offensive.
Welcome to the new dark ages.
Sheesh.
Reading or not reading the ToS/EULA has nothing to do with it, they exist, we all agree to them each time we click play, and we can, and should, all be held to them.
And for someone who does not care about Jagex banning someone, or why, you sure have posted a lot of crap in a thread about it.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Nothing entitles any business or entrepeneur to a partnership or business arrangement with another business who doesn't wanna do business with said entity.
I just gave you the substantive difference, yet you ignore it. You'll also note that the SCOTUS actually didn't have a unanimous decision with this; that's because they have to weigh competing freedoms and found that religion was the most important in that context. They do this all the time; your ignorance of it notwithstanding.
Pertinent quote:
"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
Afaik, the answer is a resounding yes. And speaking from a former Air Traffic Controller perspective, he could've EASILY avoided doing so, much easier than ATCers do on a daily basis.
Say hello to the grasshoppers for me.
NOTES
-------------------------------------------------
1: See the fabricated EULA controversy above.
Again, this isn't even unheard of, and there are career fields where you can inadvertently ruin your own career for doing much less. Sometimes, for less than even actions; inaction can do it. As with ATC. A mere oversight can cost you your career. Do you have an issue with this? You haven't mentioned anything of the sort.
His career depended upon his relationship with Twitch and Jagex. It is incumbent upon him to know what behavior his business partners would find unacceptable enough to sever those ties. Personal. Responsibility.
I know what you wrote is hyperbole, but your scenario only exists when specific groups own something you only pay to have access to.
As other's have noted though, the person who got banned from Runescae wasn't just some person, they actually regularly streamed Runescape, Jagex even gave them an award for it previously, and they had tagged Runescape in their stream with it also being played in the background.
On top of the fact that Jagex actively funds suicide prevention, this means the person was giving Jagex multiple causes to sever ties with that person as they had and were representing the game, and were going against something they morally stood for.
Don't be a troll.
On this very forum we have terms in place where we can get banned for harassing and attacking other people, and many people do get banned for just that.
How much should a person be punished? Same amount as a person who makes a bad decision in any respect in accordance with the "laws" that are in place by whatever "platform" you're on. On twitch and for jagex, it was a ban. If you harass someone in coffee shop, you could be escorted out, banned from the company entirely, or be taken to jail.
Still not sure why people are crying about this, it's like people don't want to be held to a standard of civility. "Why should I have to be nice to other people, why do I get punished for not doing so?" Come on now, what are you truly trying to fight for here? The ability to be a jerk however and to whoever you want?