14 DAY TRIAL // The number of gamers that have been banned from online games must be somewhere close to the number actually still playing said games. Still, the “banned ones” usually just accept the fact that they're no longer allowed to play with the other children since they couldn't play nice. But that wasn't the case when one California gamer found himself deprived of his beloved Resistance: Fall of Man. The ban received also extended to the PlayStation Network and its message board.
The ban followed accusations made by Sony of "multiple, repeated, intentional violations" of the user agreement on the part of the gamer. But our little “forum troll” wouldn't take this sitting down and decided to file a lawsuit against the company. Claiming that his First Amendment right to free speech had been denied, the gamer asked for pain and suffering damages but also the altruistic demand that Sony would be prevented from banning others in the game.
The matter was settled in court last week, when a district court judge dismissed the case. The basis for this decision was that, with few exceptions, the First Amendment secures the right of free speech of an individual from the censorship of the government not from that of private companies. In the end, it's Sony's right to do what it pleases with its products. And even if it weren't, the gamer did agree to the license agreement and by doing so forfeited the right of a soul, especially since we're talking about Sony.
Sony had also been accused during the trial that it was responsible for theft from the prosecutor’s client by freezing his PlayStation Network account, blocking the access to his PlayStation Wallet. The company said that the amount involved was that of $10 and as far as it was concerned it was willing to pay, even if it had no legal obligation to do so. Clearly stating that the "Terms of Service and User Agreement specifically notes that certain types of behavior can lead to suspension or revocation of the user's Network access and that any such suspension or revocation will lead to the loss of any funds held on the Network," this section of the agreement protects Sony from these allegations. On this second matter, the judge didn't give a ruling and said that the whole matter would be better argued in state court. Most likely he just saw the freedom of speech through Metallica's eyes and wanted the hassle to be over with.