Agoraphobic PS3 Owner Sues Sony over PSN Ban

[Jumplion]

Where I do get what you are saying it isn't like the label could have prevented the accident in the first place. Personally I'd like my coffee to be that hot. At least the warning on the site could prevent someone from seeing something that they might not want to see. Well at least someone whose parents don't want them to see. Having to warn someone about a hot beverage where you can see the steam comin off (or the Superman outfit) come on. If you are intelligent enough to read it well you should be intelligent enough to know better.

I guess it's more the principle of the matter, but I direct you to thebobmaster's post above yours, cofee generally doesn't give you third degree burns. That severity of burns is usually for people engulfed in flames. Not to mention that similar cases happened, yet McDonalds did nothing with either the cofee temperature or proper cup holdings, and obviously the woman didn't go "Oh, cofee isn't hot, so I'm going to pour it over my crotch!", it was obviously an accident with an outcome that shouldn't have happened, IE burns equalling being dipped in kerosene then lighted on.

Every time I heard this story, I used to roll my eyes, but when you think about it she had every right to sue (okay, maybe not every right, but still).

EDIT: Beware, many edits.

EDIT^Billion: "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

That was from thebobmaster's link, make that what you will.

 

[squid5580]

Where I do get what you are saying it isn't like the label could have prevented the accident in the first place. Personally I'd like my coffee to be that hot. At least the warning on the site could prevent someone from seeing something that they might not want to see. Well at least someone whose parents don't want them to see. Having to warn someone about a hot beverage where you can see the steam comin off (or the Superman outfit) come on. If you are intelligent enough to read it well you should be intelligent enough to know better.

I guess it's more the principle of the matter, but I direct you to thebobmaster's post above yours, cofee generally doesn't give you third degree burns. That severity of burns is usually for people engulfed in flames. Not to mention that similar cases happened, yet McDonalds did nothing with either the cofee temperature or proper cup holdings. Every time I heard this story, I used to roll my eyes, but when you think about it she had every right to sue (okay, maybe not every right, but still).

If her lawsuit was based on the temperature of the coffee it would be a different story. But trying to put out there it happened because there wasn't a warning label it should have been laughed out of court.

 

[Jumplion]

Where I do get what you are saying it isn't like the label could have prevented the accident in the first place. Personally I'd like my coffee to be that hot. At least the warning on the site could prevent someone from seeing something that they might not want to see. Well at least someone whose parents don't want them to see. Having to warn someone about a hot beverage where you can see the steam comin off (or the Superman outfit) come on. If you are intelligent enough to read it well you should be intelligent enough to know better.

I guess it's more the principle of the matter, but I direct you to thebobmaster's post above yours, cofee generally doesn't give you third degree burns. That severity of burns is usually for people engulfed in flames. Not to mention that similar cases happened, yet McDonalds did nothing with either the cofee temperature or proper cup holdings. Every time I heard this story, I used to roll my eyes, but when you think about it she had every right to sue (okay, maybe not every right, but still).

If her lawsuit was based on the temperature of the coffee it would be a different story. But trying to put out there it happened because there wasn't a warning label it should have been laughed out of court.

Look at thebobmaster's link [http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts] it explains many things in detail. The knee-jerk reaction to the whole case is "she so stupid, she dumb!" but it's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

EDI-my god, so many edits; "The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard."
It's not even a warning on McDonalds behalf, it was just a friendly "reminder".

 

[LimeJester]

I do have a friend who suffers from Crohns. I remember when he was in the hospital getting several feet of intestines removed, and I remember when he almost had a heart attack from a blood clot after the surgery. He was...probably 21 at the time. Believe me, I have sympathy for his condition, and it would be an excuse for being snappy with someone. But it's not an excuse for meticulously planned, bullshit legal action useing the condition as an excuse. I can say, "poor guy" in regards to his conditions, and think hes an asshole elsewhere. I suspect you agree.

Completely agree. From your post I guess I assumed you had knowledge of the disease and not first hand experience. Hope your friend is doing well.

 

[MecaEcco]

Im a huge libertarian. That being said your freedom of speech is a guarantee against the government's encroachment of your rights. Not a private firm. Sony, unfortunately, can ban you for doing whatever they want to ban you for. They can stop providing the service altogether. You can't sue them for this because they have laid out their policies regarding termination of services. In order to use the PSN you have to agree to this TOS (which I have written about in earnest in previous posts on other topics) which is legally binding I'm afraid.

 

[nicholaxxx]

isn't said phobia a fear of open space, not crowds? whatever, that's rediculous.

 

[Ajna]

*snip*

Exactly my point, Jumplion. It wasn't the fact that the coffee burned her, any moron could realize that coffee=hot. But would you expect coffee spilled on your pants to give you third degree burns? To give you an idea, she needed skin grafts. Because she spilled coffee on herself. Mickey D's actually said they served coffee at 180 degrees, because they believed that people didn't drink their coffee until they got home. For more information, please look at this overview of the pertinent facts [http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts].

*snip*

Look at thebobmaster's link [http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts] it explains many things in detail. The knee-jerk reaction to the whole case is "she so stupid, she dumb!" but it's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

EDI-my god, so many edits; "The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard."
It's not even a warning on McDonalds behalf, it was just a friendly "reminder".

It's nice to know that other people actually think, rather than go with the "oh, I haven't read anything about this case, just heard stuff from people who didn't research it either. She's so stupid!". The only things I can truly add to this conversation are: 1) She didn't sue because of the lack of warning labels. She sued because she got motherfucking third degree burns. If the coffee was kept at the "normal" temperature (I believe "normal" is 160. McDonalds used 180 at the time so that it would remain hot in the car longer.), she wouldn't have. And 2) She only sued for enough money to cover the costs of getting skin grafts. The hundreds of copycat lawsuits? I can't say anything either way. But the old grandma who needed skin grafts? She just wanted her skin grafts.

isn't said phobia a fear of open space, not crowds? whatever, that's rediculous.

Correct, but it's a slightly subjective thing. Most likely this man's case is just called "agoraphobia" because the *actual* word is too long to say (triskadekaphobia, anyone?).

@OT: Personally, I'm going the opposite way of (what it seems like) everyone else here is. Unless the guy was being overly offensive (and even that is open to interpretation. I'd go with "Screaming the words '******' and 'spic'", which I doubt were coming from an agoraphobic.), I don't think he needed to be banned.

I don't think suing over it was necessary, but I do think that, in his case, he truly shouldn't have his account suspended, much less banned permanently. Assuming that he tried going through the necessary channels for unbanning first, and then (and only then) tried a lawsuit, I think it's just him trying to be heard.

 

[Blood_Lined]

I am curious to know as to what he did that was so horrible within the game and it's forum to end up being banned from Resistance and PSN altogether.

Go watch his youtube vids, the links were posted on the last page. Trust me, you will no longer be curious. He even had a video of him abusing a mod, but removed it.

Thanks for the reference.
So he is 19, at least. He is legally an adult now, so I disagree with screwing over his parents for this as well. If anything, he deserves to go to the "big boys" prison, since he is not legally a juvenile anymore, despite how he may act like one. I say to leave his parents out of this, and just punish the "kid" himself for breaking the law.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

*Sigh* I really have no idea who to side with.

On one side we got a disabled man who claims he was banned for excersicing free speech.

On the other we got a company who clearly has rules in stated.

You break a rule. You get punished. It's a simple concept.

You don't give a speech about how the goverment has wronged you of you're rights when you were holding up a 7/11.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Would you guys do the same if you were in his position ?

I'be probably been Ninja'd, but he could just make another acount.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

@OT: Personally, I'm going the opposite way of (what it seems like) everyone else here is. Unless the guy was being overly offensive (and even that is open to interpretation. I'd go with "Screaming the words '******' and 'spic'", which I doubt were coming from an agoraphobic.), I don't think he needed to be banned.

Clearly you've not read the replies throughly, particularly the one quoting his YT account. He was going around calling other players "faggots", "queers", etc and generally abusing them, he's a troll/griefer and a one month ban is a fairly light warning for such behaviour in my book. It clearly hasn't caused him any real distress.

 

[Jumplion]

@OT: Personally, I'm going the opposite way of (what it seems like) everyone else here is. Unless the guy was being overly offensive (and even that is open to interpretation. I'd go with "Screaming the words '******' and 'spic'", which I doubt were coming from an agoraphobic.), I don't think he needed to be banned.

I don't think suing over it was necessary, but I do think that, in his case, he truly shouldn't have his account suspended, much less banned permanently. Assuming that he tried going through the necessary channels for unbanning first, and then (and only then) tried a lawsuit, I think it's just him trying to be heard.

*Sigh* I really have no idea who to side with.

On one side we got a disabled man who claims he was banned for excersicing free speech.

On the other we got a company who clearly has rules in stated.

You break a rule. You get punished. It's a simple concept.

You don't give a speech about how the goverment has wronged you of you're rights when you were holding up a 7/11.

Gentlemen and/or ladies, I direct you to this post. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.126375?page=8#2681998] This man is a troll, pure and simple, he has videos of him harassing other players on HOME, Resistance 1 and 2, Killzone 2, Turok, ect.... and various other things and he's suing for a one month ban.

This man deserves no sympathy and don't you give him any.

EDIT: Let's not forget that he took down the video that got him banned, he harassed an in-game mod that time.

 

[Zersy]

Would you guys do the same if you were in his position ?

I'be probably been Ninja'd, but he could just make another acount.

You are the 7th person to quote me on my comment
and the 5th to have a entertaining comment (The ninja thing)

keep em coming people !

 

[Ajna]

Clearly you've not read the replies throughly, particularly the one quoting his YT account. He was going around calling other players "faggots", "queers", etc and generally abusing them, he's a troll/griefer and a one month ban is a fairly light warning for such behaviour in my book. It clearly hasn't caused him any real distress.

Gentlemen and/or ladies, I direct you to this post. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.126375?page=8#2681998] This man is a troll, pure and simple, he has videos of him harassing other players on HOME, Resistance 1 and 2, Killzone 2, Turok, ect.... and various other things and he's suing for a one month ban.

This man deserves no sympathy and don't you give him any.

EDIT: Let's not forget that he took down the video that got him banned, he harassed an in-game mod that time.

With ten pages of replies, reading through all of them was a bit of a daunting task. After reading that post and watching the video, I have to say, he shouldn't have any reason to file the lawsuit. I was voicing my opinion based on the evidence I'd seen. I thought it was a permanent ban, thought it was one of his few means of communication, and didn't think he was an obnoxious little prick. With the information I have now, though, I say the ban is warranted. Thanks for redirecting me to that post.

(As an aside to Jumplion: "Gentleman", definitely "gentleman".)

 

[TheLefty]

Anyone know what he was banned for? It doesn't say. Also it's BS that this is his only way to socialize. I get that he has a mental condition but I'm sure there are help groups. Also how is this is only way to socialize? If he has PSN I'm assuming he has the internet. Jeez someone send him a link to the Escapist at the least. Or Facebook anything.

 

[Snotnarok]

The first amendment doesn't protect you ALL the time. It's annoying when people take advantage of the court system, it's not anyones responsibility to know what your disorders are, so it's kinda hard to TRY to prey on this. So know the rules before you go spamming crap, sure Mods can be jerks but when someone starts big fonting ****** and **** and let's not forget the famous ****** you're bound to get banned and the mods are totally in their right to do so.

Oh I forgot the best word to get banned, you're a banana! ...oh crap didn't nothing to see people :|

 

[beddo]

I....um......i think this is the most random lawsuit i've ever heard.

World Record perhaps?

Not even close.

 

[WickedSkin]

I firmly believe you should be allowed to say or talk about anything at any time. Freedom of speech people. It's important.

BUT private companies interests should also be protected. If Sony said "You cannot say "pussy" in here" you should not say pussy in there. It might keep people from using there service which would mean less income for them.

As long as the government doesn't say "You are not allowed to say "pussy". Everything is alright.

 

[squid5580]

Clearly you've not read the replies throughly, particularly the one quoting his YT account. He was going around calling other players "faggots", "queers", etc and generally abusing them, he's a troll/griefer and a one month ban is a fairly light warning for such behaviour in my book. It clearly hasn't caused him any real distress.

Gentlemen and/or ladies, I direct you to this post. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.126375?page=8#2681998] This man is a troll, pure and simple, he has videos of him harassing other players on HOME, Resistance 1 and 2, Killzone 2, Turok, ect.... and various other things and he's suing for a one month ban.

This man deserves no sympathy and don't you give him any.

EDIT: Let's not forget that he took down the video that got him banned, he harassed an in-game mod that time.

With ten pages of replies, reading through all of them was a bit of a daunting task. After reading that post and watching the video, I have to say, he shouldn't have any reason to file the lawsuit. I was voicing my opinion based on the evidence I'd seen. I thought it was a permanent ban, thought it was one of his few means of communication, and didn't think he was an obnoxious little prick. With the information I have now, though, I say the ban is warranted. Thanks for redirecting me to that post.

(As an aside to Jumplion: "Gentleman", definitely "gentleman".)

I don't understand this. What if he had been banned for just calling someone a name once? It would still be a breach of the code and conduct. Doesn't Sony have just as much right to protect thier interests? What good is making us click "I AGREE" if they can't enforce it for all of thier customers. Regardless of disabilities