You're right, this part confused me: "That's why there's a zero tolerance policy for sexist or discriminatory comments on Xbox Live". I don't see why sexism must get a special mention, but as long as all discriminatory comments are treated the same in practice (we'll see about that), I don't find it as objectionable. I wonder how will Halo 4 multiplayer would be like, now that people are forced to be nice to each other.erttheking said:'Doom972 said:Why only sexism? Why not give bans for racism, anti-LGBT, etc? If one can get you banned, shouldn't the rest get you banned?
It will, the article says that they're be cracking down on discriminatory comments in general.
Sorry but no. Nope nope nope. Nope. Freedom of speech only applies to a public forum with NO regulatory control owned by no one and facilitated by no one but yourself. Heres an example.Bashfluff said:And if you don't understand that freedom of speech also includes the ability to say things other people find offensive, then you need to do more research still. They most certainly have the right to do this, sure. But I think that trampling on the freedom of others to speak because someone was offended by that speech is A Very Bad Idea.
While I'm sure the laws will vary from state to state, and there certainly are things that can be said that are not protected by the first amendment (libel, slander, fightin' words, etc. though I think hate speech is actually protected) and while it will not protect you the consequences of your speech, we do have other laws that cover that. If you call someone a jerk and they punch you (though maybe a jerk is you) you'd better believe there are laws that protect you (or at least punish the offender in this case) from that. What free speech would there be if there wasn't protection? If someone could just beat you up to keep you from speaking your mind because they disagreed with it? That's no free speech at all.trty00 said:Ugh! I cannot believe people are seriously spouting the "free speech" thing AGAIN!
Listen up, freedom of speech gives you the right to SPEAK! It protects you from exactly ZERO consequences of said speaking, and hateful things ARE NOT PROTECTED! My god, why does every one seem to forget this!?
Actually no, no they are not. These women say that sexism is bad, then without quotes, there is a sentence about how xbox live policy contains a provision to permaban for racism/sexism etc. This is an already existing policy. Nowhere in the article does it say that 343 will be enforcing behavior on live themselves. Nowhere in the article does it say that xbox live will be ramping up enforcement when halo4 releases or will be looking at that game in particular.erttheking said:Uh, they're saying that they're GOING to have this policy with Halo 4 when it comes out.Spookimitsu said:LoL this is laughable. how the heck can she say "That's why there's a zero tolerance policy for sexist or discriminatory comments on Xbox Live"
I have heard more foul sh*t on the xbox than anywhere else. unless they disable ingame communications completely or have moderators in every public match, I'm gonna have to call bullsh*t on this one.
What crazy society do you live in?StrayDataPoint said:A) car fixing abilities are considered pretty awesome in our society, sandwich making is considered lame/derogatory
Thank you!simple64 said:Hrm. It's been said, so I'll say it again.
Your Freedom of Speech is not being taken away. To say that is insulting to the men (and women) killed in the act of defending it. You have the freedom to say what you want, when you want WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. That means you will not get manhandled by the police simply for stating that you dislike the president. That is your right as an American citizen.
That DOES NOT EXTEND to privately owned businesses or private residential areas. Simply put, you still have the right to say what you want, when you want, but they have the right to terminate your services for it. The same way you have the right to remove a man from your house simply for being a filthy Mets fan. Nobody is forced to give you a soapbox to speak, nor do they have the responsibility to make sure your word gets out, unless that was agreed upon. As such, it is your right to refuse their terms, refuse their service, and either find a service to your satisfaction, or make one of your own. If you truly support the First Amendment, you should not demand that this business should subvert their rights and bend according to your whims.
That is what Freedom of Speech is. It is not them giving you support to say what you want, and they have full right to take away your service for breaking their Code of Conduct.
Speaking of which, you have willingly, willfully agreed to their rules, a.k.a the Terms of Use. It clearly states what is, and what isn't allowed. It mentions the consequences for breaking such rules, including banning. You clicked "I Agree". Therefore, by definition, you have no problem with what they are doing. If you disagree, then you should not have clicked "I Agree". It is your right, as previously stated, to refuse their services and to spend your money elsewhere. You do not have the right to use their service how you see fit, over how they decide.
And while we are on the subject of Live, it should be said that it was never a place that upheld your "freedoms of speech". Those terms, limitations and such have always been there. The only difference between then and now is that they have never fully enforced it. It gave you the illusion that Live was meant to be a soapbox, fit to spew whatever is on your mind. According to the Terms of Agreement (ToA), they had to right to not uphold their rules, and to change how they uphold them whenever they see fit, and without warning. You agreed to this when you hit "I Agree". It was your right to not use their service if you had a moral objection to this, but I suppose the need to game overrode your sense of morals then.
And on a side note, I would like to address those who would like to tell those to "just mute the offenders". Do you know why such drastic measures are being taken place now? It is because the developers of Halo 4 do not want an environment in which everyone must be on mute in the first place. The people doing the harassing aren't even following their rules to begin with, so why in the Eight Divines (I'm no heretic) should steps be taken to make the game more enjoyable to those breaking their terms? Because they payed for the game? Cool, they can still play the game offline, it's still usable. However, you broke the rules for online play, in which you've agreed to the consequence. Sure, we can just mute the offenders. But the devs don't want the offenders here in the first place.
So that's that. What I am saying isn't only my opinion, but backed up by fact that you can find, sans the last paragraph before this.
tl;dr Cry sum moar, trolls!
Freedom of speech, in the way you understand it, does NOT override the right to run a private business, so long as that business does not break a few constitutional laws themselves. At the same time, as I painstakingly typed above, none of your rights are being infringed upon. Those "millions of people" do not make their private functions into a public space. If you feel your rights were being loss, if you disagree with their policies, you should not have agreed to give them that right, and you should have refused that service.Dexter111 said:Actually, yes they do. They protect the freedom to say anything that isn't directly inciting to violence, and there are a few more exceptions. Since the freedom to be able to say those things weighs more than the feelings of the "offended" people.trty00 said:"Free speech?" Uh... no. Free speech laws don't protect you when you say downright hateful garbage.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=668543
In fact, in the US there have been several cases where for instance certain institutions like universities tried to restrict free speech and they lost in court since their code of conduct proved to be unconstitutional and impeding free speech so it got overruled, for instance: http://staging.thefire.org/article/9014.html"On this cluster of interrelated topics, there appears to be a strong international consensus that the principles of freedom of expression are either overridden or irrelevant when what is being expressed is racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. ... In contrast to this international consensus that various forms of hate speech need to be prohibited by law and that such prohibition creates no or few free speech issues, the United States remains steadfastly committed to the opposite view. ... In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, but in the United States, all such speech remains constitutionally protected."
It can of course be argued that Microsoft has total control over their "service" and can do what they want, but it sets a bad precedent and at some point when millions of people can get together and talk to each other, creating what are basically public spaces there need to be other considerations weighed against each other than the company line."Every time campus speech codes have been challenged in court, they have failed. Yet unconstitutional speech codes remain the rule?not the exception?at universities across the country," Lukianoff said. "Look for many more of these challenges in the future as FIRE continues our fight to end speech codes nationwide. Repressive speech codes have no place at our nation's colleges and universities."
There are similar cases for instance for Twitter "fights": http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-stalking-is-protected-free-speech-judge-rules/
Ultimately freedom of speech is a boon that should be held very highly, one of the very base fundamental rights humans have and not a matter that should be trifled with over simple matters like "offending someone's feelings", and people will only know what they have lost when they unfortunately come into the situation that they have no free speech anymore. Let me tell you, it's not a great thing and there are still large parts of the world in the Middle East, North Korea, Africa etc. where it doesn't exist.