Judge Tells Gamer That Sony Doesn't Violate His Free Speech Rights By Banning Him

from the sony-ain't-the-government dept

Thu, Oct 8th 2009 9:21am — Mike Masnick

Back in July, we wrote about an annoyed videogamer who sued Sony for banning him from the Playstation 3 game "Resistance" for things he said to other players in the game. He claimed it was a violation of his First Amendment rights -- though, as we explained at the time (and, as anyone actually familiar with the First Amendment already knows), the First Amendment only covers actions by the government, not private corporations. Sony has every right to bring down the banhammer if it wants to. It should come as no surprise then, that the judge wasted little time explaining this to him in the process of dismissing the case. However, there is one interesting aspect, as highlighted by Eric Goldman in the link above. The judge rejected the idea that Sony might be covered by the First Amendment as a "company town." Goldman points out that some have suggested this argument in the past, and now there's at least one ruling that totally rejects it:

Sony's Network is not similar to a company town. The Network does not serve a substantial portion of a municipality's functions, but rather serves solely as a forum for people to interact subject to specific contractual terms. Every regulation Sony applies in the Network is confined in scope only to those entertainment services that Sony provides. Although the Network does include "virtual spaces" such as virtual "homes" and a virtual "mall" that are used by a substantial number of users (Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of Opp'n. to Dismiss 1), these "spaces" serve solely to enrich the entertainment services on Sony's private network. In providing this electronic space that users can voluntarily choose to entertain themselves with, Sony is merely providing a robust commercial product, and is not "performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and [standing] in the shoes of the State." Hudgens, 424 U.S. at 519 (quoting Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568-69 (1972)).

Sony does not have a sufficient structural or functional nexus to the government. Plaintiff has not suggested that Sony is part of the state or federal government. The Network was not created to further government objectives. The government retains no permanent authority to appoint any directors of Sony or the Network, or any other private body associated with the Network. There is no indication that Sony has assumed functions traditionally reserved to the government, or that the government had any part in encouraging Sony to create the Network. Count one of the complaint does not state a plausible First Amendment claim for relief, and therefore must be dismissed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: company town, free speech, video games
Companies: sony

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

william (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 9:41am

can someone explain to me
what the hell is a company town concept in law?

It's a private network. So even if it helps you perform some functions of a town, like news, or perhaps pay bills, it's still a private network so the owner should have the choice of not providing you service.

I just don't understand this company concept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: can someone explain to me
  Here you go:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#List_of_company_towns
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:36am
    
    Re: Re: can someone explain to me
    Gotta tell ya; I liked the old picture better...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Some Other Guy, 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: can someone explain to me
      Maybe the new one would look better with a different background?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: can someone explain to me
      Eh, me too, but there was a question of infringement, and I don't do hypocrisy, so I changed it. The new one is actually from a learn-how-to-draw website that encouraged the downloading/copying/use of the image and the drawing in stages images to learn how to draw them.
      
      The problem is it's of Vader, not Dark Helmet..er...me. There are so few images of me available on the net that aren't demonstrably free and clear, unfortuntely...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Misanthropist (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: can someone explain to me
        just grab a screencap from the movie..... that is clearly fair use
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: can someone explain to me
        Really? Then why was the other shot, which was just a close up of a screen cap brought into question?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        anymouse (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: can someone explain to me
        It was a bogus DMCA (Darkhelmet Must Comply Automatically) request, and you fell for it.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: can someone explain to me
  The judge made the right call here.
  
  I was unaware of the company town idea, but after reading the wikipedia entry, I'm curious if ISPs could be considered in this manner to a small extent. We're approaching a point where many essential services are online-only or at least the most useful access is done online, such as job-hunting and banking. Could an ISP deny service to someone if they were willing to pay? What if they were the only ISP available in the area? Could the telcos ever deny service to individuals when they were local monopolies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mglickman, 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:29am

Second Life
So if Second Life continues to catch on the way it has, being used by some as a virtual meeting place for business purposes, etc... would that have a better chance of being considered a company town?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: Second Life
  Interesting question, though I'm guessing probably not given this ruling.
  
  Traditional company towns are like the Hotel California. You can never leave.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difranco, 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:44am

Sony is a Corporation
Corporations are government entities created by the Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zellamayzao, 8 Oct 2009 @ 10:46am

Its kinda like.....
.......a store refusing to sell something to someone because they were acting like a douche bag in the store to the other customers and was kindly asked to leave immediately. He needs to get over the fact Sony exercised their right to remove harmful people from their network as to protect the other people using their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bobby Boberana, 8 Oct 2009 @ 11:06am

If we bail out Sony, then banned him, could he then sue?
It seems like they had two distinctions. One being that it is a private company(not true, it is a public company. Plus one supported in the past by a foreign government). So if this was a public social network, that was bailed out by teh US Government, could he then not be banned? This could be a pretty interested side effect of this ruling? If the Whitehouse creates a facebook page. I then say I dislike whatever administration that would be in the white house at the time I made the speech. If I was then banned or kicked from Group, can I sue?

Their other distinction was that a virtual town, can not be considered a company town. I woudl liek to hear others opinions of freespeech on government social networks. Now that many communites and goverments are starting to tweet, create facebook groups....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 8 Oct 2009 @ 11:15am

I played Resistance online for awhile. The annoying little bastard™ (yes, I've trademarked the phrase) ratio is much the same as it is in any of the Halo games on Xbox 360. What really sucks is you realize that nearly all of them are American kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Smith, 10 Oct 2009 @ 1:01pm

Sony sucks as always
Well thats a sure way to make a consumer hate your product!
Good job ! I Myself dont ever buy their products due to their
acts against its consumers.I throw up the big finger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]