Agoraphobic PS3 Owner Appeals Sony Lawsuit Loss

[Archemetis]

This to me sounds a little suspect...

An agoraphobic person, with PSN as his "Only" means of communication with the outside world.
Although I'm assuming he must at least have internet, considering you sign up for PSN with an EMAIL ADDRESS.

He's also had to go to court, which would pretty much murder someone with simple anxiety let alone Agoraphobia...

Something tells me there's more bullshit going on here then there was when I was claiming disability benefits for Agoraphobia, even though I physically came to collect my own doctors recommendations...

Yeah...

 

[paragon1]

For an agoraphobic, a purple, attention-getting suit, and several trips to court seems a little... not-so-agoraphobic.

If you catch my drift.

Yeah, that smell of bullshit is a bit overpowering, isn't it?

Not only do I smell bullshit I also smell "Defence lawyer's most convincing argument".

Yes. I'm convinced that the only reason that it was even allowed to be appealed in the first place was that the word's "First Amendment" were contained within it. The Appeals board probably only allowed it through so that a higher up judge could set the precedent of smacking it down.

 

[Therumancer]

Let me be honest, we ARE the World Police

Please don't confuse the US with the UN.

In general EULAs should be no more binding than medical waivers when something 'goes wrong'. What's more they should be entirely optional when using software and such that you've bought. Especially if the agreement is not posted ON THE PACKAGE before you open the software/hardware/whatever. By this I mean in detail, not a little blurb implying there might be one.

As far as further disclosure of the EULAs goes, I agree. No argument from me there. Have you seen the length of some of them though? I have no idea how they'd put that onto the packaging whatsoever. They're absolutely enormous some of them. Take, for example, WoW's EULA [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html], can you imagine trying to cram that onto a single box in such a way that it was both legible and still left room to advertise their product?

I don't disagree that we should have more access to know what we're signing up for before we purchase something. I'm all for Customer Rights, but currently I'm not sure how they'd do it.

As far as how we enforce it, well one can always deny access to companies like Sony to our marketplace. We can also keep them geographically isolated (an embargo). Meaning that if they choose to send out ships/planes to other alternative markets to see their product, we shoot them down (typically we don't actually wind up doing this since people don't push it). If things get really bad we just shrug and fire a couple of cruise missles into a corperate HQs or a national capitol to make it clear we mean business.

You seriously want to cockblock Sony, one of the largest players in the electronics industry to the extent of shooting down planes and even to go so far as to assault civilians?

Good sir you are stepping dangerously close to the line where I get convinced you're simply trolling. From your previous posts you're either a committed one or off your rocker, but firing missiles against a civilian target like a corporate HQ is a one-way ticket to a diplomatic clusterfuck the like America hasn't seen since they signed the Declaration of Independence.

The US doesn't generally act quite like this, but that's how we SHOULD be acting when it comes to free speech. Even if it means war with nations like China (which is inevitable anyway as I've explained before).

Good luck with that. Not going to go into it now but I'm pretty sure a war with China would castrate your already writhing-in-pain economy.

Japan is no longer a global force, their SSDF is a joke, if we pulled out of Japan their days would be numbered.... we're their bodyguard as well as the occupying force.

Japnese military, a joke? This source [http://www.globalfirepower.com/] and this source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures] beg to differ. When they're that high on those lists they're clearly doing something right.

Under the circumstances a Japanese corperation dictating terms of free speech (even if you don't go globally) is an absolute joke.

Pretty sure they have Free Speech laws anyway.

If the Japanese SSDF is on any kind of serious lists of military power, then it by definition makes those lists dubious. Either that or it's a diplomatic gesture.

The UN is incapable of being the world police partially because the UN has always basically been us anyway when it's had to do anything, and partially because it's become a joke by letting the very people it's supposed to be policing into it as members and even giving them a say on security members. The very fact that nations like China are involved in any kind of desician making process in the UN is an example of why the UN is pretty much useless and should probably be scrapped. Sure China is a powerful nation, but it's also exactly the kind of nation that was intended to be policed by the UN as opposed to being a member of the UN.

 

[megasamus1]

.... he likes the Joker, eh? That would explain why he's acting so crazy. *ba dum tish*

(insert laugh track here)
Seriously though, does this guy have any other forms of communication than his ps3?

 

[Therumancer]

What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).

In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.

actually there's TONS of precedent that already state that companies are not subject to this and they are allowed to censor anything they want. there is also precedent that private areas are not limited by free speech either

Which of course is exactly why counter-precedent needs to be established to protect the right itself. If private citizens can engage in censorship of other cititzens then the right might as well not exist for all intents and purposes.

This just makes the case more important rather than being an arguement to the contrary.

However, as things stand I believe most precedent for private citizenship exists in the context of private business owners and such doing so on a small scale. Basically a boss being able to fire employees for spreading discontent and such among their co-workers and the like without violating a free speech amendment.

This of course goes back to my whole point about the morality changing along with the number of people affected.

 

[Therumancer]

snip

There is neither the will nor the way to export US morality. Never mind your first amendment rights. Hence Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of countries, there is hate crime legislation in the UK and China really cracks down on freedom of speech, I could go on. You cannot fight everyone. Even with the nuclear option (Which isn't really an option) plenty of other countries are armed with nuclear weapons. It would not end well for anyone involved.

Start by addressing the rights of women and the democracy in Afghanistan before worrying about who gets banned from PSN/XBL.

EDIT:

Japan is basically under US occupation. This is done for a number of reasons, for one they were (and arguably still are to a great extent) a group of evil twits

Theru, that is straight racist to say an entire nation are evil twits. Not cool. How many Japanese people do you know? (posts on the net doesn't count. Im talking visited their home etc.)

Not racist, culturally bigoted maybe, but not racist... and yes, I have no problem with calling backwards cultures backwards and talking about straightening them out or even destroying them based on their behavior.

That is the big differance, a racist hates someone for being black or whatever. I hate people for the way they behave, even if they were raised that way. Race can't really be changed, but even on a societal level behavior can. You can beat a black person non-stop and they can't stop being black, but you can blast a culture back to the stone age and change their behavior.

As far as Afghanistan goes... well you do what you can and address the issues you can. However if you've actually read some of my other messages, I've also talked about sorting the middle east out also, and you might guess from the above statements what my opinion is even if you haven't read them.

Also don't get me wrong there IS a middle ground in sorting things like this out between ignoring someone/letting it go, and the total destruction of entire cultures. However this really isn't the time or the place for such a discussion

At any rate this conversation is going nowhere, and I've said what I feel I need to, so I figure I'll withdraw from it. Those who disagree with me (which is pretty much everyone else posting0 and I will of course have to agree to disagree.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

If the Japanese SSDF is on any kind of serious lists of military power, then it by definition makes those lists dubious. Either that or it's a diplomatic gesture.

The UN is incapable of being the world police partially because the UN has always basically been us anyway when it's had to do anything, and partially because it's become a joke by letting the very people it's supposed to be policing into it as members and even giving them a say on security members. The very fact that nations like China are involved in any kind of desician making process in the UN is an example of why the UN is pretty much useless and should probably be scrapped. Sure China is a powerful nation, but it's also exactly the kind of nation that was intended to be policed by the UN as opposed to being a member of the UN.

yes cause American soldiers aren't met with disdain and hate towards them in countries the occupy, i mean the Iraqi people just love them. it's also funny how American occupied areas have a lot more issues than the ones occupied by other countries, such as the Dutch.

also the bulk of the UN forces are actually Canadian soldiers and NOT american. you should really learn what the UN does and who actually represents it and its forces.

also if you want to pump up how awesome the United States is, you should also look at who owns most of the companies that are "American". they are either Japanese or European. there is also the massive financial debt owed to China by the United States, the phrase "got you by the balls" applies to what America owes China right about now

Which of course is exactly why counter-precedent needs to be established to protect the right itself. If private citizens can engage in censorship of other cititzens then the right might as well not exist for all intents and purposes.

This just makes the case more important rather than being an arguement to the contrary.

However, as things stand I believe most precedent for private citizenship exists in the context of private business owners and such doing so on a small scale. Basically a boss being able to fire employees for spreading discontent and such among their co-workers and the like without violating a free speech amendment.

This of course goes back to my whole point about the morality changing along with the number of people affected.

ok so you just agreed that the PS3 and the PSN is not included under free speech since it is a private network and not public. The Escapist, Warcry and the whole Themis family is also a private network, sure you can reach it by the internet, it's not publicly owed. the PSN is the same, it is a privately owed and operated network

 

[Therumancer]

If the Japanese SSDF is on any kind of serious lists of military power, then it by definition makes those lists dubious. Either that or it's a diplomatic gesture.

The UN is incapable of being the world police partially because the UN has always basically been us anyway when it's had to do anything, and partially because it's become a joke by letting the very people it's supposed to be policing into it as members and even giving them a say on security members. The very fact that nations like China are involved in any kind of desician making process in the UN is an example of why the UN is pretty much useless and should probably be scrapped. Sure China is a powerful nation, but it's also exactly the kind of nation that was intended to be policed by the UN as opposed to being a member of the UN.

yes cause American soldiers aren't met with disdain and hate towards them in countries the occupy, i mean the Iraqi people just love them. it's also funny how American occupied areas have a lot more issues than the ones occupied by other countries, such as the Dutch.

also the bulk of the UN forces are actually Canadian soldiers and NOT american. you should really learn what the UN does and who actually represents it and its forces.

also if you want to pump up how awesome the United States is, you should also look at who owns most of the companies that are "American". they are either Japanese or European. there is also the massive financial debt owed to China by the United States, the phrase "got you by the balls" applies to what America owes China right about now

Which of course is exactly why counter-precedent needs to be established to protect the right itself. If private citizens can engage in censorship of other cititzens then the right might as well not exist for all intents and purposes.

This just makes the case more important rather than being an arguement to the contrary.

However, as things stand I believe most precedent for private citizenship exists in the context of private business owners and such doing so on a small scale. Basically a boss being able to fire employees for spreading discontent and such among their co-workers and the like without violating a free speech amendment.

This of course goes back to my whole point about the morality changing along with the number of people affected.

ok so you just agreed that the PS3 and the PSN is not included under free speech since it is a private network and not public. The Escapist, Warcry and the whole Themis family is also a private network, sure you can reach it by the internet, it's not publicly owed. the PSN is the same, it is a privately owed and operated network

No I did not, as I feel that it is on too large of a scale. The differances between a private citizen controlling the speech of a handfull of individuals on a small, closed basis is one thing. Once you start dealing with numbers potentially in the millions it changes the entire equasion.

The existing prcedent is fine when dealing with relatively small groups, which is what established it, but not fine when dealing with similar issues on a much larger scale. The numbers of people involved changing everything IMO.

Of course in the end though that is all this is, is people's opinions. Many are not going to agree with me, I can dig that. That's why I mentioned in my last message that I was going to stop responding to prevent this from becoming endless, but I figured I'd re-state this paticular point.

*I* feel that what is right in dealing with a small group of people is not nessicarly right when dealing with a much larger group of people. The differance between some guy working for you in your business, or visting your house, and some guy involved in a social network involving potentially millions of people that you happen to own being very large, and as such should be handled differantly from a legal perspective. One of the reasons why I feel cases like this should go to court instead of being tossed before a hearing.

 

[nathan-dts]

What is it with you Americans? Always sueing each other over pointless things.

Because judging 400 million people by the actions of a select few is not a dickish move. Nope.

Because calling someone out on an extremely obvious joke is not a dickish move. Nope.

 

[Pimppeter2]

This guy is a real life troll

 

[Jumplion]

*I* feel that what is right in dealing with a small group of people is not nessicarly right when dealing with a much larger group of people. The differance between some guy working for you in your business, or visting your house, and some guy involved in a social network involving potentially millions of people that you happen to own being very large, and as such should be handled differantly from a legal perspective. One of the reasons why I feel cases like this should go to court instead of being tossed before a hearing.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.126375?page=8#2681998
http://www.youtube.com/user/DPMVincint19

He's sueing over a one month ban. He has posted YouTube videos of him harassing other players and illegally recording a customer service phone call of him harassing the service person.

Sony is not responsible for him being an Agoraphobic or whatever, if he needs to socialize that bad without leaving his home then he should do so without being an ass.

Taking this to court would be a waste of time and money, which it already is. Are there some instances where a ban could have been unjustified? Maybe, the whole "Lesiban banned on LIVE" thing stirred up some controversy. But this guy is suing over a one month ban for trash talking on Resistance 1 against the admin of the game and abusing the mute function, and he can still socialize regardless.

You are being much too sympathetic towards him an apathetic to Sony, all of this is just a waste of time and leads me to believe that he's just an attention whore who wants people talking about him. After all, it's working isn't it?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

No I did not, as I feel that it is on too large of a scale. The differances between a private citizen controlling the speech of a handfull of individuals on a small, closed basis is one thing. Once you start dealing with numbers potentially in the millions it changes the entire equasion.

The existing prcedent is fine when dealing with relatively small groups, which is what established it, but not fine when dealing with similar issues on a much larger scale. The numbers of people involved changing everything IMO.

Of course in the end though that is all this is, is people's opinions. Many are not going to agree with me, I can dig that. That's why I mentioned in my last message that I was going to stop responding to prevent this from becoming endless, but I figured I'd re-state this paticular point.

*I* feel that what is right in dealing with a small group of people is not nessicarly right when dealing with a much larger group of people. The differance between some guy working for you in your business, or visting your house, and some guy involved in a social network involving potentially millions of people that you happen to own being very large, and as such should be handled differantly from a legal perspective. One of the reasons why I feel cases like this should go to court instead of being tossed before a hearing.

sorry but size is irrelevant, i mean if an IBM employee came into an office and started shouting fire and such, they'd be fired and escorted out of the building, same goes for any workplace regardless of the size.

if you say "well that place is too big" then you are being discriminatory, size matters not as one business entity is looked at the same as any of them are, no matter if they have 10, 10 000 or 10 000 000 users that use the service and both must be treated the same under the law, as there's tons of precedence for that too.

 

[TitsMcGee1804]

what winds me up about this fella is...he obviously doesnt take this whole lawsuit thing very seriously...but yet he is wasting SCEA's money to hire lawyers, wasting the justice systems time that could be spent on dealing with someone who has had their foot chopped off or something

'I might go dressed up as the Joker'....I hope that follows him into court and the judge takes one look at him and just say, you say things like this, and you expect us to take you seriously?!

why not spend your time GETTING HELP instead of suing people for gratuitous amounts of money you dont even deserve

also...not 'wanting' to go out and socialise is NOT agoraphobia....agoraphobia is an actual fear

what he has is just a bad case of 'i have no friends'

 

[Jim Grim]

...Does he have a phone?

 

[The Rockerfly]

Sorry did I read that right $180,000?

For what?

Just because your account banned? What a pathetic, sad, sad little man

 

[Cherry Cola]

How is Sony "not subject to First Amendment obligations?" Anything that operates in the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws. Unless he was making threats, all speech is protected speech.

I'm pretty sure First amendment obligations only work for the government, not privately owned forums and such. The First amendment doesn't force people to accept everyone even if they talk shit, it just forces the government to allow them to do that, through internet and articles in the newspaper. If I don't want to hang out with a person that is constantly talking shit I don't have to, and if he happens to be in my house then I have the write to force him to leave. You can see the Playstation Network as property owned by Sony, and if you are a dick there then they have the right to force you to go.

 

[Mekado]

As far as how we enforce it, well one can always deny access to companies like Sony to our marketplace. We can also keep them geographically isolated (an embargo). Meaning that if they choose to send out ships/planes to other alternative markets to see their product, we shoot them down (typically we don't actually wind up doing this since people don't push it). If things get really bad we just shrug and fire a couple of cruise missles into a corperate HQs or a national capitol to make it clear we mean business.

The US doesn't generally act quite like this, but that's how we SHOULD be acting when it comes to free speech. Even if it means war with nations like China (which is inevitable anyway as I've explained before).

So, you're basically suggesting shooting missiles in a friendly country ? at a civilian target ? for....not respecting the 1st amendment of the US constitution (even though they don't have to)?

GO AMERICA!
(this is why most of the world likes you...)

Note : about the JSDF, you *are* aware that they're artificially downsized right ? If tomorrow the US leaves Japan, i can guarantee you they'll triple if not more the size of their army within a few months...

Anyways, on topic, this guy is an idiot attention-seeking whore with an antisocial behaviour (NOT agoraphobia imo, just anti-social) He signed the rules, he broke the rules, he got banned for a month and he's crying about it ? gimme a break...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Guess I'm just agreeing with the masses above here, but really it comes down to common sense, I'm gonna side with the corporation for a change.

If I needed an injection professionally administered daily, I'd be sure to at least be civil and polite to the nurse bothering to visit me to apply it.

Same goes for him, if he feels he NEEDS his PSN access, then he needs to treat it with at least basic human respect or he'll lose it.