Heavy Price for Free Speech
Wired News (11/02/04); Terdiman, Daniel
Determining
the degree to which players of online role-playing games should be
permitted to exercise their rights to free speech and expression was a
topic of discussion among a panel of legal and academic experts at the
second State of Play conference.
Frederick Schauer of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Second
Life Herald author Peter Ludlow, and Yale Law School professor Jack
Balkin contemplated whether massively multiplayer online game
developers could be found legally liable for allowing antisocial
behavior among players, and what operating policies the developers
should establish to shield themselves from such litigation. Schauer
disputed the common view among players that speech is an assumed right
in virtual worlds, noting that it is predicated on a traditional
American perception of liberty that does not align well with game
space; he also noted that some game participants hail from countries
where free-speech rights are not as rigidly protected as in the United
States, especially when confronted with "issues of libel and slander,
issues of invasion of privacy, hate speech, racial hatred, incitement
to violence and incitement to various forms of crime." Balkin argued
that game developers must consider four basic issues in relation to
free speech: The possibility of government regulation of free speech;
commercial game operators shielding themselves with the First Amendment
in an effort to avoid regulation; concerns that in-world speech could
fuel disputes and even legal action; and operators' incentive to censor
speech and write rules sanctioning censorship into their terms of
service. To guard against legal attacks, Balkin proposed interation, a
setup in which game companies choose terms of service from among a
series of models that are then presented at a game's launch so players
would have a clear idea of speech allowances and restrictions.
Article complet :
http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,65532,00.html