It's not per say about freedom of speech. It's about "at our discretion" formula which in this case falls into freedom of speech area. There is no link needed to uderstand this, really. :-)
It's not per say about freedom of speech. It's about "at our discretion" formula which in this case falls into freedom of speech area. There is no link needed to uderstand this, really. :-)
So, I have the right to say the people that run DB are a bunch of greedy, uncaring poopyheads. Just like they have the right to remove my post because it's their forum and I could potentially offend some snowflake somewhere..........
It's not per say about freedom of speech. It's about "at our discretion" formula which in this case falls into freedom of speech area. There is no link needed to uderstand this, really. :-)
So, I have the right to say the people that run DB are a bunch of greedy, uncaring poopyheads. Just like they have the right to remove my post because it's their forum and I could potentially offend some snowflake somewhere..........
I wouldn't question "greedy" or "uncaring" words if you back them with some explanation. Using "poopyheads" word on the other hand is quite clearly in violation of a very specific and pretty valid part of ToS. I wouldn't be surprised if they ban you for this kind of language.
I do have a problem though if they close threads just because they don't like it, i.e. "at their discretion", without giving real explanation. This is legally and morally very questionable thing to do. For example, they are closing threads raising valid and legit questions about shuttle missions involving AND slots at alarming rates despite evidence thrown at their face there is clearly something wrong with these shuttle missions. Yes, this kind of behaviour bothers me as hell and they don't have the right to do this just because. I would say even more. In my opinion they are legally obligated to make official statement about players concerns in this case.
"The constitutional and other legal protections that prohibit or limit government censorship of the Internet in some countries do not generally apply to private corporations."
In the United States, the Constitution is primarily a document of "negative rights". You don't necessarily have the freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from suppressing free speech. This is an important distinction as private companies are not held to that same standard. They are not obligated to provide an open platform for anyone.
While I'm not a lawyer, since this is an American company, I would guess jurisdiction of such a case would fall into American courts.
"Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions (in line with the due process requirements of the Constitution), and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court."
"The constitutional and other legal protections that prohibit or limit government censorship of the Internet in some countries do not generally apply to private corporations."
In the United States, the Constitution is primarily a document of "negative rights". You don't necessarily have the freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from suppressing free speech. This is an important distinction as private companies are not held to that same standard. They are not obligated to provide an open platform for anyone.
While I'm not a lawyer, since this is an American company, I would guess jurisdiction of such a case would fall into American courts.
"Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions (in line with the due process requirements of the Constitution), and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court."
Microsoft and Apple was punished because of their illegal action on EU market by EU justice system.
"The constitutional and other legal protections that prohibit or limit government censorship of the Internet in some countries do not generally apply to private corporations."
In the United States, the Constitution is primarily a document of "negative rights". You don't necessarily have the freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from suppressing free speech. This is an important distinction as private companies are not held to that same standard. They are not obligated to provide an open platform for anyone.
While I'm not a lawyer, since this is an American company, I would guess jurisdiction of such a case would fall into American courts.
"Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions (in line with the due process requirements of the Constitution), and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court."
Microsoft and Apple was punished because of their illegal action on EU market by EU justice system.
Emphasis: "without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer"
Edit: Would you mind also citing what foreign statues they would be running afoul of? It's pretty clear they are meeting the American standard, but I haven't seen you indicate what, specific, statue they are in violation of in a foreign country, just veiled suggestions that they might be. I made a cursory search for that information on my own, but nothing stood out.
"The constitutional and other legal protections that prohibit or limit government censorship of the Internet in some countries do not generally apply to private corporations."
In the United States, the Constitution is primarily a document of "negative rights". You don't necessarily have the freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from suppressing free speech. This is an important distinction as private companies are not held to that same standard. They are not obligated to provide an open platform for anyone.
While I'm not a lawyer, since this is an American company, I would guess jurisdiction of such a case would fall into American courts.
"Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions (in line with the due process requirements of the Constitution), and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court."
Microsoft and Apple was punished because of their illegal action on EU market by EU justice system.
Emphasis: "without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer"
Edit: Would you mind also citing what foreign statues they would be running afoul of? It's pretty clear they are meeting the American standard, but I haven't seen you indicate what, specific, statue they are in violation of in a foreign country, just veiled suggestions that they might be. I made a cursory search for that information on my own, but nothing stood out.
I could agree that Apple's case could fall into your "purposely availed himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer" exception. Microsoft case on the other hand... I don't think so...
Comments
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Ha! Repressed by the king himself! What do you do then?
Easy but understandable choice.
So, I have the right to say the people that run DB are a bunch of greedy, uncaring poopyheads. Just like they have the right to remove my post because it's their forum and I could potentially offend some snowflake somewhere..........
I wouldn't question "greedy" or "uncaring" words if you back them with some explanation. Using "poopyheads" word on the other hand is quite clearly in violation of a very specific and pretty valid part of ToS. I wouldn't be surprised if they ban you for this kind of language.
I do have a problem though if they close threads just because they don't like it, i.e. "at their discretion", without giving real explanation. This is legally and morally very questionable thing to do. For example, they are closing threads raising valid and legit questions about shuttle missions involving AND slots at alarming rates despite evidence thrown at their face there is clearly something wrong with these shuttle missions. Yes, this kind of behaviour bothers me as hell and they don't have the right to do this just because. I would say even more. In my opinion they are legally obligated to make official statement about players concerns in this case.
"The constitutional and other legal protections that prohibit or limit government censorship of the Internet in some countries do not generally apply to private corporations."
In the United States, the Constitution is primarily a document of "negative rights". You don't necessarily have the freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from suppressing free speech. This is an important distinction as private companies are not held to that same standard. They are not obligated to provide an open platform for anyone.
While I'm not a lawyer, since this is an American company, I would guess jurisdiction of such a case would fall into American courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cases_in_the_United_States
"Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions (in line with the due process requirements of the Constitution), and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court."
Microsoft and Apple was punished because of their illegal action on EU market by EU justice system.
Emphasis: "without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer"
Edit: Would you mind also citing what foreign statues they would be running afoul of? It's pretty clear they are meeting the American standard, but I haven't seen you indicate what, specific, statue they are in violation of in a foreign country, just veiled suggestions that they might be. I made a cursory search for that information on my own, but nothing stood out.
I could agree that Apple's case could fall into your "purposely availed himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer" exception. Microsoft case on the other hand... I don't think so...