Why you don't have freedom of speech in WoW
by Adam Holisky 
Dec 14th 2009 at 8:00PM
Freedom of speech is one of the most often quoted rights by gamers and people online, yet it is sadly one of the most misunderstood. This right comes about regularly when people are discussing forum bans, moderation, and people like Ghostcrawler telling folks they need to behave. People think that just because they live in a democracy or free society that they have an innate right to do and say whatever they want wherever they want.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In a private forum, such as the official World of Warcraft forums, or on a site like WoW.com, you don't have any inherent right to do anything. The people running the site or designing the game sets the rules, and that's that. If Blizzard says all communication must end with "Ni!" or you're banned from their forums, then that's the rule you must follow. It's their property and their choice to do that.
If we say every comment must make fun of gnomes or the commenter will be banned, then that's the rule you must follow. It's our website.
Freedom of speech has absolutely no bearing within a private organization. When you accept WoW's Terms of Service or use a website like WoW.com, you agree to abide by the organization's rules. If you don't follow those rules, or if someone in the organization just wakes up on the wrong side of the bed that day, you can be prohibited from returning to the forums or playing the game.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In a private forum, such as the official World of Warcraft forums, or on a site like WoW.com, you don't have any inherent right to do anything. The people running the site or designing the game sets the rules, and that's that. If Blizzard says all communication must end with "Ni!" or you're banned from their forums, then that's the rule you must follow. It's their property and their choice to do that.
If we say every comment must make fun of gnomes or the commenter will be banned, then that's the rule you must follow. It's our website.
Freedom of speech has absolutely no bearing within a private organization. When you accept WoW's Terms of Service or use a website like WoW.com, you agree to abide by the organization's rules. If you don't follow those rules, or if someone in the organization just wakes up on the wrong side of the bed that day, you can be prohibited from returning to the forums or playing the game.
What does the first amendment and freedom of speech affect?
It affects the government. It gives you a right to tell those in power whatever is on your mind. It even tells you that you have certain protections from government intrusions into your own life. Things like your right to establish a religion or the rights of the press. It does not give you the right to say whatever you want on privately owned websites, nor does it give you permission to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While you might not like that Blizzard has every right to ban you, and you might not like that we have every right to delete your comment, you have no legal standing under the first amendment to demand a private organization act differently. If you don't like what a private organization like Blizzard or WoW.com does, then you can express your displeasure with your feet. You can go play a different game, you can go to a different website. Nothing is forcing you to participate in either.
For United States-based readers and players, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Loydd v. Tanner (1976) that the First Amendment does not give citizens the right to express themselves freely on private property. Such precedents exist within other legal systems as well.
Now it's in Blizzard's best interest not to go power happy and ban whomever they feel like without any reason. And it's in our best interest to allow dissent within our comments, even against our own articles. But everyone has their limits. We've seen from the explosive drama this last week over Ghostcrawler that Blizzard has limits on how far they'll allow people to express their unadulterated discontent. WoW.com has such limits too.
So, my dear readers, before going out and screaming the wails of oppression, please understand that you're not being oppressed -- in fact, everything is just fine. Your rights are your rights, but they stop at the Terms of Service.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Forums
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 19)
astianax Dec 14th 2009 8:02PM
Thank you, Adam. Hopefully this will knock some reality into all the arm-chair lawyers out there.
Rakah Dec 14th 2009 8:08PM
we are the knights who say "Ni!"
Jeff Dec 14th 2009 8:13PM
I am not sure of the authors schooling, but unless he went to law school isn't he an arm-chair lawyer as well?
Dan Boden Dec 14th 2009 8:13PM
I'm curious as to why Holisky has chosen to make this an issue now. This is no different than what has been going on on the Blizzard forums since their inception. Threads of these kinds have come and gone, some far worse than what he has taken it upon himself to report about here. And Blizzard has always had a heavy hand in regards to shutting people up.
So yeah, people are rude and idiotic on the Blizzard forums. But really, if you think it's any different then it has been, well, you must be new here.
Pemberton Dec 14th 2009 8:32PM
And armchair lawyer is about as helpful as an armchair healer.
Roflchopper Dec 14th 2009 8:53PM
For some reason, the title of this article made me think of some of that Soviet era propaganda against freedom of speech and what-not. Silly Commies, freedom is for democracies, and obviously WoW isn't a democracy.
Arturis Dec 14th 2009 8:58PM
"I'm curious as to why Holisky has chosen to make this an issue now"
Just because he is discussing this now doesn't mean that he is just now making this an issue. It simply means that it was on his mind and he wanted to blog about it.
Dreadskull Dec 14th 2009 9:23PM
I really don't understand why the people think they're able to say whatever they want on a forum like that. That's like going to a completely different country and cursing them all, then saying "oh, I'm an American, I have freedom of speech!"
*sigh*
maika Dec 14th 2009 9:50PM
"you must be new here."
haha. Maybe he is.
He could be one of the new players who wants a game he can just waltz calmly though, without having the think. *shrug*
I think this post is important though. It's symptomatic of a lack of values. He only cares about free speech in the context of its legal application, not as a value in and of itself.
hegar Dec 14th 2009 10:46PM
I didn't realise there were actually people who think that the rights the state grants them descend into the product of a private gaming company. That's just crazy talk. As a US citizen living outside the US i have to say to my country: Education system - look it up it does wonders.
Shadamehr Dec 14th 2009 11:20PM
Male gnomes are creepy, and that's that :P
Kelz Dec 15th 2009 12:14AM
What's with all the Monty Python references today? Did somebody rewatch Holy Grail? :P
Mark Dec 15th 2009 1:32AM
I would remind everyone, that The Knights who say Ni are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Peng, and Neee-Wom. No one should use these sacred words irresponsibly.
Because of this, you do not have the right to yell "Ni" in a crowded theatre.
That is beyond your 1st Amendment rights.
James Dec 20th 2009 3:19PM
Wow, you are just a ray of sunshine aren't you Adam.
People know what free speech is, you don't have to lecture. But it is kinda dumb. You start a flammy discussion, then you're surprised people get flammy? If you punch people, they are going to punch you back. I don't care if you want to go hide behind your bodyguards of terms of service and whatnot. Or you want to hide behind a smug verneer of psuedo-journalism. Fact is you called out the entire wow community; you're doing it again. Duh, people are going to have some words to say in return. That's karma at work for you.
Now as far as free speech, the thing is not the LAW, per se. It's the IDEAL. In a democracy, we value the right to free and open expression. It is the best way to get at the truth, to have an open discourse, and the best way to resolve disputes. Afterall, wouldn't you rather someone call you stupid, than shoot you, or let's say, not pay to read you anymore? Words can be resolved. It's just words. When you tell people "it's our private site, you have no rights!" You are just telling people you don't really value open expression. Think about that.
And yeah, nobody is asking you to put up with really egregious trolls. But to be honest, this is the internet. It's like going in the sewers and expecting not to find rats. There will be trolls. Deal with it. (ie. ignore them) Don't cry every time you turn the corner and there's a puddle of poo. And if you must, must get rid of people, then do it quietly. Don't make some huge scene like your mama was wronged or something. That's all I have for today :)
Evari Thalia Dec 15th 2009 5:39AM
"I'm curious as to why Holisky has chosen to make this an issue now."
There is always the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, perhaps this is the case here. Yes, this issue has arisen occasionally on practically every internet discussion board since the internet began, and it will continue to do so. That fact doesn't make it any less annoying, or any less frustrating to people who actually use their brains when posting comments, unlike our trolls and flame baiters.
Unfortunately, most people who will read this piece are not of the type to go carrying on about free speech where none exists, and so the problem will continue.
"He only cares about free speech in the context of its legal application, not as a value in and of itself."
But really, that is what is being discussed here. If people are protesting being banned from forums because of what they have said, it's about the application (or non-application thereof) of "free speech." It's "value" in society has no place in the discussion.
PeeWee Dec 15th 2009 6:05AM
"People know what free speech is, you don't have to lecture."
A quick glance at almost any forum on the web proves you dead wrong.
Common sense isn't.
Ratskinmahoney Dec 15th 2009 8:35AM
Freedom of speech is over-rated imo, as is freedom of the press. It should be balanced with some kind of 'responsibility of speech', or 'responsibility of the press' if that last weren't oxymoronic.
Fine, oppression is bad on the whole but so is the amount of influence that the media has over gonvernment in liberal democracies, even when their agenda are plainly imbecilic.
VioletPheonix Dec 15th 2009 11:37AM
@ James
Yes, people who exercise common sense realize that you can't say whatever you want wherever you want and the first amendment will cover you, but then on the internet there seems to be a shocking shortage of people who use common sense.
I cannot believe the amount of people who actually scream about first amendment rights when they get banned or see someone else get banned for inexcusable behavior.
James Dec 15th 2009 1:54PM
@Violet
See, that's the thing. People CAN say whatever they want :) There are just consequences is all. Maybe they get banned; maybe a columnist scolds them. That still doesn't change people's capacity to express themselves.
And particularly when the posting is anonymous. You might as well assume people have freedom of speech. Because there's nothing you can do to prevent someone from saying what they want. You're just going to end up wasting your time if you even try.
Ultimately, there are two very big flaws with what Mr. Adam is saying. #1 It's just words, man. Relax. I should be able to post ANYTHING at all; and you should be able to brush it off. Secure in the knowledge that a) it's just words b) I don't know you c) I probably was just trolling anyway d) it won't mean anyting by tommorrow e) etc. If you feel absolutely compelled to react dramatically to what people write on the internet; then you should not be reading what's posted on the internet. You are not adjusted enough to be. #2 MOST, the vast majority of the people who misbehave on the internet, are basically little kids. (teenagers, young adults, etc) They are just goofing around. They are not mature enough to understand that even though it is the internet, and it really is mostly meaningless talk, that they should try to behave anyway. But you, as the columnist, or as the would-be-police, you should be mature enough to understand where people are coming from. And not blow up everytime someone does something they just don't know to do better. #3 You attract more flies with honey. I've been on countless forums, where if you are nice, even to the people who aren't so nice; eventually the nice to not-nice ratio is heavily positive. Most of the people who act out, they just want attention. If you ban them or yell at them, you're probably just going to escalate their actions. If you try to be accepting though, eventually they realize they DO have your attention, just under the condition that they behave. And then they do.
I could go on, but I'll save the wall of text mega-crits for Arthas :)
grauwyler Dec 15th 2009 2:54PM
@hegar
I assume this statement was merely written in haste:
"I didn't realise there were actually people who think that the rights the state grants them..."
The U.S. Constitution (or even 'the state') doesn't grant rights to the people. It enumerates preexisting rights that the people already had before the document was written. Any and all powers granted to or withheld from the government by the U.S. Constitution ultimately comes from 'the people'.