What Is Happening To Gamers?

I’m gonna try and keep this to the point as much as possible and based on some of the responses I’ve seen on this site this is probably gonna be a very unpopular opinion.

A couple days ago an article was posted about a gamer that lost access to all his games on psn for making extremely racist comments while playing an online game. They banned him for a month I think for hate speech. To be honest I was completely dumbfounded as to how many people actually cheered this and thought this was a good thing. When exactly did we get to this stage? Firstly let me make this completely clear, in no way, form or fashion do I support nor am I excusing what this guy did. I completely agree with there being some form of penalty and punishment for this behaviour. I myself have been on the receiving end of numerous racist slurs and have also witnessed it being done in the opposite direction (surprisingly you never see people complaining about that). So I am fully in support of this guy being banned from playing online for a month. However, I cannot and will not agree with him loosing access to all his games.

Why, why would anyone think this is a good thing? Listen, no company, not Sony, Microsoft nor Nintendo should have the right to stop someone from accessing what they paid hard earned money for over something like hate speech. Remove access to online play, sure but not access to their library. What is the big issue you may ask? It’s pretty simple, what the hell is hate speech?

Think about this. The term hate speech is such a broad term that is being weaponized right now by some very unscrupulous people, do you really want a company having the power to block you or perma-ban you from thousands of dollars that you invested due to something as vague as hate speech? There are places now where you can be arrested for calling a guy with a wig on his head a man, that’s considered hate speech. Imagine you’re playing online and you’re having a discussion with someone and you say “well, it’s my opinion that there are only two genders”. This is now considered hate speech and people have been banned from twitter and Facebook for making comments like that. Are we really going to say a guy should lose his entire library for this? Again, understand that my issue is not that he was punished, it’s the severity of the punishment for something like hate speech.

Yes he should have received punishment for his racist comments but not losing access to his entire library. A punishment that severe should only happen if you are found to be doing illegal activities on the network, not for freaking hate speech. This is wrong and to be honest it pains me that I have to be defending a bloody racist in this situation. I will not support someone who calls me the ‘n word' being banned from accessing their library. No gamer should. Ask yourself what simple, non-offensive comment you can make today that may be considered hate speech tomorrow. Would you like losing access to your account for making that comment? Blocking someone from accessing their library should only be done in the most extreme situations.

If we champion this decision now then we are going down a slippery slope that will take us into a gaming nightmare that we will all regret.

[isarai]

Thats what happens when you buy digital, only game restricted were digital games. Thay are entirely in the right as digital purchases are nothing more than glorified rentals, you dont own a thing, and they can do whatever they want with it.

[UltraNova]

Isarai,

Wrong time and place to bring this up, even if its true.

To the point:

Great post, true in many ways. I particularly liked your characterization - weaponizing a vague term like "Hate speech". Do we really want to end up having to think about every single word that comes out of our mouth when online? To be clear I'm not in any way defending racism. But we need to acknowledge the fact that lines on what's considered Hate speech today have been blurred.

This is a slippery slope if I ever seen one.

[AnubisG]

We are already there where you have to watch everything you say like during communism or someone will alert the authorities and than you'll be in trouble. This will only get worst and people don't realize how horrifying this is.

[sampsonon]

this is the dumbest discussion I've ever heard. YES we ALL know what hate speech is. it's not vague and it's been around for a long time.

i have white friends that i never heard say racist things. maybe it's because we all grew up in a society with many cultures around us and our friends were a mixture of races. why can they not do it but others need to be told that they are being racist? or saying something antisemitic?
this is simple.

stop saying racist things online like you have the right. and just play the bloody game.

[uth11]

@AnubisG. - unfortunately many people won't realize how horrifying it is until they themselves get in trouble for hate speech for saying something they considered harmless, but one person took offense

[djplonker]

@ultra

He called people n*gger and fagg*t and sent links to white supremacy websites.

It's 100% undeniable hate speech no blurred lines if you need to be told not to call black people the n word then you probably shouldn't be talking about a serious subject and go back to putting lego up your nose.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

If I heard a white friend say racist things they wouldn't be my friend.

They know I don't have time for the BS.

[UltraNova]

Small minds think alike I guess. You lot deserve all the sensoring you get, wether you deserve it or not May the hammer fall hard on your a****.

[Atom666]

Ehh...Wrong time and place to talk about blurred lines. The kid responded to the ban by sending Sony customer support links to white supremacist sites. That's not to mention actively pushing his own racist bullshit to other users.

There are better examples to use in a slippery slope argument. At the end of the day, it's everyone's right to be a prick, but it's Sony's right to say that you can't be a prick on their network.

Because those digital licences are tied to a suspended account, he lost access to them. If he spent more time reading the TOS and less time on 8chan, he may have known that.

If you intend to hide online and be a little snowflake bigot, buy physical next time.

[Atanasrikard]

@NoHoHank

Hate to burst your bubble Hank but even when you buy a physical copy all you are buying is the license in a different form. Terms and conditions don't change based on the method of distribution.

[isarai]

Did you even bother reading the whole thing? This is exactly the time and place to bring this up. This post is not about the hate speech but rather if it's right to ban someone's access to their own games. I wouldnt say it's something i agree with (i think you should keep the games you buy even if digital) but this is what everyone agrees to when they buy digital besides a few services like GOG

[StormSnooper]

@UltraNova
Do I like the fact that digital future is going to suck? Nope. But, I think gamers should also keep in mind that we all want to be free from racist idiots polluting the gaming habitat when we play online. So, does the punishment fit the crime? I guess it depends on how toxic this particular guy was. But from the sound of It, he deserves to get his account suspended. This is not a slippery slope, you should not get away with saying things you shouldn’t/wouldn’t say in a person’s face. Just because you are online doesn’t mean you have a license to be free from consequences of your conduct.

[Chexs1990]

I most likely offend people every day, because I curse a lot. However, I never direct the swearing at anyone, unless I'm pissed at them.
It's just how I grew up and the social arenas which shaped my speech patterns

[DaveZero]

No we shouldn't have to watch what were allowed to say, yet people shouldn't be so hateful and damn right nasty. It's upto an individual to be right with others and some just behave in a manner that makes them such a shame on the rest. Some people live for just making others lives a misery and I would go as far as to say as its infected gaming and it makes me feel sick to be honest. I live to play games with people and enjoy that, yet these moronic brain dead people who throw racist remarks, bully or whatever they do to try get to someone, shows how more must be done to stop them.

There is no place in the world for any of it, especially gaming, just get on have fun and play your games.

Does not matter anymore if you have physical or digital if the console devs want to deny you for being a prat, then that's on that individual and it's there fault. Don't do the things online that bring on bans its that simple, you only have yourself to blame if you get your account or console locked.

I have no sympathy for anyone who is doing it, deserve all they get.

[Christopher]

***To be clear I'm not in any way defending racism. But we need to acknowledge the fact that lines on what's considered Hate speech today have been blurred. ***

Eh, I have to be honest, that's not truly accurate. In most cases, hate speech is pretty easily identifiable. Calling someone a 'bundle of sticks' or the usual hard g n-word are definitely hate speech and are some of the most commonly used. This "slippery slope" people love to throw around are extreme situations when we still deal with even famous people who call others these words and think it's acceptable (see Deadmau5).

This whole slippery slope logic is in itself a slippery slope in trying to allow hate speech and do nothing about it. Perhaps you think because everyone should have to work to mute everyone who's a jerk, and that's your opinion, but it's a bad one. We're then, as a society, promoting such things rather than getting people to improve.

I will agree with you that systems are set up to mishandle issues in a manner that is severe.

Here are my issues with online handling of things today:

1. Automation: Systems that find any use of a word or phrase and ban based on its use without context. R6S has this issue where people could bait others into saying something in a database that was considered hate speech but it didn't take into consideration its use or reference.

2. Lack of cultural reference. As it is, PS Communities already have a massive list of words that are censored because in China this word means something that no one who doesn't speak it understands at all. Or this animal is a racist reference only in one part of the world, so no one can say it.

3. Just bad programming. PSN Communities, again, fails at this. I can type out of a full word that is not offensive in any language, but if part of it is an offensive word, even one in #2 that we have no clue about, it gets censored with '*' so much that the only solution is to use a different word and hope it's not censored or use spaces. This even happens with parts of game names.

But, all this 'it's a slippery slope' talk does is argue against the current systems but does nothing to argue for a system that is better. A system that has regional filters, a system that isn't 100% automated, and a system that takes into account context.

And I'll tell you why that system isn't made and why people should push for it, it's because it takes people to manage it and no one wants to pay for it. But they should if they want better online environments and we should tell them that rather than just say "how you are doing it is bad."

There is a toxicity issue online and it should be moderated in some manner, but the solution isn't just to accept it, IMHO. The solution is for those companies that rely so heavily on online environments to invest money in making they less toxic in a fairer manner.

It's never going to be 100% fair, that's just how it is. But it can be much better and reduce the issues of the current automated systems utilized. But I feel aiming for a 100% fair system is in of itself a slippery slope in arguing against any system at all, and I don't agree with that.

[Teflon02]

Nothing slippery about it. Do you know how hard it is to get a ban on psn. You have to be repeatedly harassing people. I've seen ppl get reported 20 times for the same thing. Even to the point a whole games community knows about these ppl and they'll never get banned. This guy expected to be banned so that's all she wrote. An account ban whether temporary or not disables your account. Not limit it. If he's getting mad in game saying fn n words etc. He wouldn't have been banned. This guy was going out of his way to glorify racism on psn. He should have been permanently banned and lost his games. This isn't new xbl has done this plenty, ninty and steam work similarly as well. Only time it didn't is like Wii since whatever you bought, you got installed with no license needed. But because ppl aren't honest and will pirate. They do this to protect property. You don't wanna lose your stuff, follow the tos. You don't even have to actually follow it with psn either. They don't even care to clean the network of these things unless it's mass reports.

[jeki]

The slippery slope argument is a propaganda technique.

It assumes we are so stupid as to not be able to handle future situations.

We can't ban hand grenades because it's a slippery slope, we won't know what to do when someone wants to own a bolt-action rifle.

We can't ban PCP because it's a slippery slope, we won't know what to do when someone wants to smoke pot.

[rainslacker]

You don't have to watch everything you say. Just be respectful. I say plenty of things I know people don't like and probably some might be offended by. But, in doing so, I don't attack others by expressing my opinion. I don't call them names, and certainly don't use extremely inflamatory descriptions of them based on superficial attributes. I may have an opinion of someone that I'll express in a way that is heated, but I call them out in a way that is specific to their actions and make a case for it.

Hate speech is not vaguely defined. Calling someone the "N" word in a derogatory way, is hate speech. Hate speech for legal means is also defined in a way that involves it requiring it be used to incite violence, so it's not supposed to be used just because some people are idiotic.

[Army_of_Darkness]

Ban the guy for a month is perfectly fine... Restricting him from accessing his other games/content however, is NOT Cool. Especially if he paid for it.

[WelkinCole]

Nova that is the point. Digital games is not really yours to own an do whatever you want with. It is as Isarai said. Glorify rentals.

I agree he should not lose all his games as he already paid for them for christ sakes but this is the problem when you sign up to their terms when you purchase from them digitally. They can do whatever the F they want and we as consumers/gamers are at their mercy.

This case highlights yet again why digital is bad and why I really hate GaaS because its the next level of digital games where companies have a stronger grasp over your balls.

Physical or die.

[UltraNova]

Again I do not condone online hate speech of any for or for whatever reason and I agree on digital games being the gateway of publishers total control of our purchases. But its become clear to me that the current sensoring/punishing system is often unfairly harsh and needs a lot of fine tuning.

We need to stay vigilant and protect our rights, because no publisher/corp will do that for us.

[indysurfn]

Good article, they are not saying it is VAGUE. They are saying it CAN be VAGUE. For instance you can say I want 3/5 of a land, profit, contract. And it can turn out that 3/5 can be used as a racist term meaning your only 3/5 of a human. Three-Fifths Compromise.

The sneaky thing is, your getting two sales of the same games. Like he said, ban them from playing online don't take away there games. But they are letting the person repurchase them. How convenient! $$$

[jaycptza]

This is what happens when you don't read the terms of service then act like a dick and get screwed over but you deserved it

[AnubisG]

To be fair, something like this should not even be in the ToS as it is crossing a line. They have no right blocking you from content you have paid for.

[sampsonon]

@AnubisG:

if it's in the terms of service they have every right to do it.

i don't have a problem with this because i never say racist or hate words.
I'm just online playing and having fun.

and believe me when i say the guy won't be saying racist things online anymore lol.

[Imalwaysright]

sampsonon

Sony could have the right to block the games they license to us because that's what we are paying for when we buy a game and/or block us from using their services but they shouldn't have the right to block access to games that are licensed to us by other publishers and I'm not sure if they can legally do it ToS or not.

[jaycptza]

They do have the right, just as you have the right to not go digital. The option still exist to purchase physically. The point is that your account is hosted on their platform which they control

[StormSnooper]

@AnubisG
Actually something like this is indeed necessary in the TOS because it is there to protect other people from harassing comments. You do realize that other people also paid for their copies, and deserve to be able to play them without having to deal with pricks. The TOS are there for a reason.

[Atanasrikard]

@Stormsnooper

I don't get this, you guys know there is a mute/block button right? I haven't looked in to it but from the sound of it, what this guy did went beyond the pale when he sent white supremacy sites or whatever to Sony customer service (though I'm not sure the point of that). Noone gets to decide what anyone else can and can not say, unless someone is calling for/inciting violence against another.

[Teflon02]

AnubisG
As a black man, last thing I want is to be profiled on the street by cops and harassed. Every race and culture fearing me if they haven't met me. Girls of races outside of mine being interested in me but won't date specifically because parents don't want them with a black man. I come home from my near slavery styled job where I get no respect. I work towards some of my goals while home (my goals in life are art related) after that, you're just trying to relax and play a game. You have ppl sending you a bunch of racist stuff and sending you some KKK style crap. You're going to be completely annoyed. Why should ANYONE of any race have to endure that? Anyone who's arguing that he should be able to access his digital content are part of the racism problem. I don't care what the tos says. People commit suicide and such off that crap. It's nothing to play with and what you're concerned about is the fact he can't play his games? If he could still play his games its not even worth banning his account. Psn allows you to do everything but paid multiplayer with a free account. All it means its he gets to change his account name. It's better than banning thw whole system and screwing anyone else who uses it. He's not only using hats speech. He's glorifying it and inciting haveful conduct by sharing that stuff. He should lose his stuff permanently.
I've known this was in the TOS from the start. Why don't you look and read what a psn game or any digital game says under the game descriptions. You have no right to complain in such a situation. Ppl love to blow specific things out of proportion. Can't believe all the dumb ass ppl here. I'll probably get a ban here for saying it. But 8 don't give a damn, every single person defending the idiot with, "wahh! Shouldn't have took his games, wahh!" are a bunch of idiots who clearly couldn't run a network properly, because what you're saying is give no real solution. You can't agree to terms then say you don't have the right to do what I agreed to. Dumb ass conversation.

[StormSnooper]

@Anasrikard
A person should not expect to say whatever he wants without suffering the consequences. A person is free to say whatever he wants, but that doesn’t mean he is free from the consequences of what he says. You are confusing freedom of speech with absolute freedom to say things without consequence. They are two different things. I’ll give you an example so you see the difference. You don’t go in public and call an old man an “old fart”. Why? You are completely free to do that because it doesn’t fall under any exceptions to freedom of speech (like incitement to violence). But you don’t do it, why? Because you are not free from the consequences of doing it, such as public disapproval, damage to your reputation, manners, public decency, getting fired by your employer who sees the act as one that demonstrates your lack of respect or human decency. That is the difference. You are still fully within your right to call someone an old fart, but these consequences are not covered under your freedom of speech. Yes?

Also, since you mentioned a mute button, i don’t think that the rest of us should turn the other cheek when confronted with someone who is trying to harasss us. Essentially you are saying, if you don’t like to be called by racial slurs, you need to mute the racist while everyone else can still hear him calling you by derogatory names.

[Knushwood Butt]

Regardless of digital or not he could still be blocked from using the PSN service itself.

[sampsonon]

that's what happens when you're a racist.

[djplonker]

Double post (damn mobile)

[BigTrain]

"Wrong time and place to bring this up, even if its true."

I completely disagree, this is the perfect place and time to bring this up because it's truly relevant to the actual core of this issue. The actual idea of true ownership is a lie when it comes to digital content and this scenario proves it. The online ban was a sufficient consequence, the ban of access to his library is a violation of personal property but not if he "agreed" to the TOS. Yes the TOS, that is really not a true contractual agreement seeing as how there is no other option if a gamer wishes to use what they've purchased. It's really just an enforced set of rules and the act of purchasing digital content is nothing but voluntarily becoming a glorified renter for the sake of convenience until it's not convenient anymore.

[Cobra951]

Not true. Almost all software comes in digital form these days. The difference here is that one company, Sony, controls your access to it. But on open platforms, once you have the software (game or otherwise), the seller, developer or platform creator can't take it away from you. The legalese may say it's a use license (as it also does on physical game releases), but we have full possession of it--so morally, ethically, and in practice, it belongs to us.

[Teflon02]

Cobra, you dont need to pay nothing to update games so it's not a big deal seeing ps3 games updates are still on the servers. Also, 80% of games outside some AAA have a completely playable game on the disc. They just improve it as much as possible after as it's never going to be perfect. So they just clean what they can. While I hate a million updates for a game. If you buy a disc, especially on ps, you'll have no issues with updates. So owning a disc means you own the game. But when you buy anything with software related to it. You're rights are immediately limited by the software owner. It's like a console. You realize, Sony MS, ninty can legally brick your console on purpose if you're doing specifics with it? You can't argue this topic as it's not a Sony issue. It's how it legally works everywhere. You wanna keep everything. Learn to hack or use gog on pc lol

[Kumakai]

Wrong. Just because you own a disc, doesn’t mean you own the game. You purchase the right to play a copy of the game. If you violate the terms of service, they can cut off your access to servers. That means no patches, no multiplayer, no dlc, no account sign in. You can literally just play what’s on the disc locally until it needs a connection. This is true for 97% of games available to you.

[dumahim]

Yep, you sign up for a service, you agree to their terms. If you decide to not only flaunt those rules, but completely not give a shit about them and shatter them at will, then the outcome to such behavior should be expected and there should be no shock or sympathy.

People talk about their own rights, but seems a lot of these people forget that it goes both ways. Sony has the same rights. So if they chose to not provide a service to a rule breaking, unapologetic racist, then that's within their rights to do so, just as much as it's the racist's right to his beliefs.

[deno]

Absolutely my man. I can't see myself gaming if it all becomes digital.

[Mr Marvel]

There’s a 3rd gender?
I don’t know anyone who’s given birth to a gender other than Male or Female.

[SegaGamer]

I actually agree with you. I think most people were saying that the ban was right, but losing his digital content wasn't.

[TekoIie]

He didn't lose his game though. He was just denied access to the license for a month. I actually think this punishment for what the guy has admitted to is absolutely fine.

[SilverDemon]

He got ban for a month. But what if the ban was for ever?
And sony shouldn't have ANY right to tell me i cant play the games i rightfully bought for a month,weak or even an hour. Not using the service? Fine, it's their service. But MY games

Seriously, first the decided the content of the games (censorship) and now when we get to play the games.
The need to be reminded they are not our parents

[SamPao]

I read it was for a week

[Mr_Writer85]

@silver

You own a licence to play that game, when you buy that game via Sony you agree to their T&C.

I bet you can find something that says by agreeing to their T&C they reserve the right to ban you from digital titles.

He didn't have a leg to stand on. And if you don't like it? Then don't buy digital.

[johndoe11211]

@SamPao

You could be right. It may have been a week, I'm not sure but my point still stands. Doesn't matter if it was a week, month or day, the overall point is that banning someone from accessing their entire library for breaking a rule online regarding 'hate speech' is way overboard.

[TekoIie]

@SilverDemon

"He got ban for a month. But what if the ban was for ever?"

He didn't get banned forever and that's a fallacy.

"And sony shouldn't have ANY right to tell me i cant play the games i rightfully bought for a month,weak or even an hour. Not using the service? Fine, it's their service. But MY games"

Im afraid you don't own those games. You've purchased a license to play those games which you've agreed can be revoked. Don't do any racist shitposting on PSN and you should be fine. I'm sure there's far more entertaining places on the web that doesn't involve putting your PSN account at risk.

[Christopher]

***But what if the ban was for ever?***

We're not dealing in hypotheticals here, only in reality.

***Seriously, first the decided the content of the games (censorship) and now when we get to play the games.***

The first is fully up to them. That's always been the case. It's the same as Valve removing games from their store that don't meet their guidelines. No different here at all.

The second is the only thing we should be discussing here.

*** The need to be reminded they are not our parents***

Nothing of this is about parenting. They are moderating. I'm not your parent when I moderate here, I'm following our Terms of Use and Guidelines. I'm not being your parent, I'm using our rules to restrict you so you will understand in the future what happens if you break the Terms of Use/Guidelines again.

Having said that, I agree that they should have only implemented an online ban and not a software access ban. I'm wondering if their system is currently set up to only ban an account in this manner and doesn't have the option to ban online access to games?

[djplonker]

@john

“To further clarify the reasons for the ban hammer, I already know why as I stated in my previous email so it’s not a surprise to me that I got banned. talking about forced ‘migration’ into the West, directing other PSN users to various chans and White Nationalist content, and calling other players n*ggers and f*ggots, etc.”

You are defending this guy and his actions and saying its ok that he hurt other people but its not OK he can't play his games?

He hurt people online (his choice) because of their race (not their choice) and then he has the balls to post it online and the sad part is people are siding with him with arguments that basically boil down to I am not racist but.....

Just remember that racism and patriotism mixed with a psycho leader is how the holocaust started..... One day it was just burning jewish books the next day it was jewish men women and children.

Racists are dangerous and should always be treated as such.

[Kosic]

It's stupid people are defending him because they think it's "his game." But disregard his actions.

Kids end up killing themselves due to abuse via forums. Chat rooms and online gaming. This person is toxic and isn't something I would support and if I was his parents. He'd get a belt, slipper and what not against the side of his head to correct his b.s views.

Edit: you can easily change the subject and make the same point. Someone pays for their driving lessons, and their driving license. They keep driving badly, drunk, dangerously etc.

They then have their license removed and then the car. Would you feel sorry for the bad driver who PAID FOR THAT LICENSE? I bet most be happy that bad driver is off the road. So why is this any different?

[Sono421]

You so clearly fail to see the bigger picture here, you really need to broaden your horizons and quit building up these straw man arguments. Literally no one is defending the comments he made, take your illogical outrage somewhere else. Come back when you can actually think about this critically.

[Teflon02]

Sono.
Yes you are. You're inadvertently defending the actions by saying Sony's perfectly legal actions are against human rights or something. Despite agreeing to psn terms. You're not allowed to buy on psn without an account so if you have no account, you can't access that accounts content. When they use to do it on ps3, everyone was sharing games with like 5 friends. This is a outcome of irresponsible gamers. If you can't be responsible with nice things. You don't get nice things. Sony and psn are EXTREMELY lenient. For you to get bans on psn that aren't psn name related are almost unheard of because Sony doesn't go out of their way to ban people. I actually think they go out of their way to ignore these ppl unless they're doing way too much and getting too much reports. They weren't even banning a person who's sending death threats to me in msgs when I reported them. So this person is clearly doing to much. This isn't simple hate speech. It's inciting hateful conduct. That's a million times worse. Some people use the n word against black people to be racist and try belittle them. Then you have ppl like this who are trying to push the agenda that black people and homosexuals are something inferior. He can get off the Japanese man's console with that. Wish they'd brick his console as Sony has even the right to revoke the os if they wanted. You can't argue against what they did when he agreed to exactly those terms. If he didn't read it, it's his problem. The idiot knew he was going to get banned and still sent more of the hateful stuff directly to Sony and even in his reports saying he doesn't care he's a proud racist. Stfu with all that. This isn't a conversation of what is right. Enslaving and killing of other races came with racism. He wouldn't be too happy if he was on the Recieving end and I bet he would be saying white bs as a black man. F him and anyone who thinks he deserves to have licenses that are tied to a temp revoked account. Literally defending his actions. If he had access to his games he can just make more accounts, and play em online with no issues. That's not a penalization. He'd also have a new mask. Ppl who don't suffer consequences for bad actions won't ever respect the rules

[Clunkyd]

I agree they shouldn't restrict gamers from playing their games, but I'm sure glad it happened to a racist. LMAO

[NotoriousWhiz]

1) He should not have lost access to his games. That is a bit over reaching.
2) There is nothing vague about hate speech.

[Xaevi]

Generations of hate being weaved into human kinds very existence, and people still get outrage over racists. People hate, you're no different. So the guy's a racist a-hole, you disagree, get over it. No he doesn't deserve to have what he bought taken away for such a stupid reason. The point here is you don't own anything you buy digitally and that's an issue everyone should have since so many keep spouting that digital is the future.

[djplonker]

I love how you define racism and hate as separate things.

It's not OK to judge someone by the colour of their skin and its totally fine he get punished for his dumb and dangerous opinions that actually have relevance in the real world and could mean someone getting killed because of the crap he spews.

But oh no poor guy can't play his pooter games, it's one less shit head thinking they are tough because he can hide behind anonymity to deal with online and I hope Sony keeps it up.

[Sono421]

"It's not OK to judge someone by the colour of their skin" ugh... no one is saying it is okay. I'm pretty sure he's saying hate is hate. Racist hate is no better or worse than any other kind of hate. But if you truly have problems with judging people by the color of their skin you should have problems with colleges who constantly judge applicants by the color of their skin or places like the BBC who said in the future they hope to have their company be made up of 20% black 20% asian 20% white 20% hispanic and 20% whatever.... making it clear they are using race as a primary factor for new hires..

You know you called him a "sh*t head"... sounding pretty hateful here.. maybe sony should take your games away? I mean you're okay with them doing so if a person is being hateful right?

I feel the need to explicitly state i'm making a point with that last comment, I don't actually care if you bash the racist... just showing the flaw in your logic.

[nicsaysdie]

Here's the thing about digital and hate and digital hate. People that say that kinda stuff online are cowards. He'll always be a coward just like everyone like him. As far as sony's removing access to his digital games. That's probably his fault for not setting his account properly. If his ps4 is set with his profile as primary, then even being banned from the network should not have resulted in him losing access to content he downloaded to his system. Otherwise the system has to be able to verify the license key by signing online to psn. If one is banned from PSN, one can't sign on to verify license key. Stop trying to demonize Sony over something an Internet butt hole brought on themselves. It's simple, set up your ps4 profile correctly, and most importantly DON'T BE A RACIST! Otherwise you deserve to lose access to the licenses you've purchased which any company has the right to revoke at any time, for any reason. It says so in their ToS.

[Christopher]

***People hate, you're no different.***

Yeah, I am different. Very. Maybe you're no different, but don't speak for others.

***So the guy's a racist a-hole, you disagree, get over it.***

No. Racism is bad and people need to learn to respect people for their differences, not hate them for it.

***No he doesn't deserve to have what he bought taken away for such a stupid reason.***

Being racist isn't a 'stupid reason' for being moderated. I do agree it was too much, but it's not a stupid reason.

It sounds to me like you're fine with racism, which is a truly weird flex to have.

[Hungryalpaca]

It’s not so much being fine with racism but hiding it only has it fester and get worse. That’s how extremism starts.

Numerous neo nazis and kkk members have seen the error of their ways through dialogue, discussion and friendship.

Yes. Racism is bad. Shunning them and forcing them underground makes those people worse.

[Xaevi]

I accept racism, I accept hate. No I don't think it's fine, but I don't allow it to bother me. I just think that people are trying too hard to make it go away, and it won't go away, ever. I like to think that I'm a pretty passive person, but I'd be lying if I said I don't hate something. I've grown to be accepting, so I don't feel the need to act on my hate. Of course that's up to the individual to grow, but I won't waste my time forcing them to.

[rainslacker]

If people don't want that, then they shouldn't agree to the terms of service. leaving racism out of the conversation, if people really want ownership, then they have to stop agreeing to buying things that they don't want. But, if they do want them, then for the time being, they have to play by the rules of the service in question.

Lets put it into context. Lets say you buy a year long membership to a gym. After a month, you get pissed off at another person and become verbally abusive towards them. The management there tells you to never come back, and don't refund your money. Is that right? I say yes, because you broke the rules of good behavior at the gym which are usually in the contract you sign when you sign up for such things.

I know people talk about rights and what not, but in this case, playing games is a privilege. Consumer has rights, yes, but they sign those rights away when they sign up for the service, and when they buy every individual game. In the case of digital purchases, you actually have no rights of ownership, so nothing is actually being taken away from you.

If you own physical games, then yes, Sony would be in the wrong to come into your home and take those games from you. But, even there, they do have the right to restrict the use of that software by banning your console. However, I don't know of any instance where they've done that outside of modded consoles, and you still physically own the medium the game comes on, so you can still play it if you wanted.

The biggest consumer right that's being ignored is that the consumer has the right to not agree to the terms, and instead assumes that their rights are implied because of what they want. But the reality of the situation is that the rights are explicitly defined, and people want to complain about that definition after the fact, and in this case, come across as defending racism or improper behavior to try and make their argument for a better cause. Unfortunately, outside instances like this, the topic is usually more fan boy, and in the all digital debate, it just becomes more about how digital is the future or whatever the current arguments are for the glorious future.

[BioDead]

This is ONE of the reasons why I don't ever play any online games. I always play alone or with a friend, but not publicly in some random online game. I hate them, because the people there in general and because of something like this could happen to me. English isn't my first language and what if I say something wrong and I got perma-ban or whatever there is and get cut off my content? People are assholes, especially online and they can report me even if I haven't even done anything wrong.

[LoveSpuds]

This is ridiculous, whether English is your first language or not, you know full well what is acceptable language and what isn't; and that's the same for everyone else.

If you are a normal person who behaves in a normal manner, you have nothing to worry about. If you resort to name calling then you are being a pathetic man baby and going further still, if you start dropping racist epithets then you are being a complete scumbag.

If you play games and just chat normally to other gamers and respect others, you have no chance of being banned.

Of course, not everyone behaves so if you don't want to be exposed to this kind of aggressive behaviour then sadly, yes, generally you basically need to avoid playing online in certain games.

[Imalwaysright]

Yeah no, not really. I'm portuguese and in portuguese the word "negro" is the most respectful way of saying that someone is black but in english spoken countries is a word that is considered offensive by some people. There are cultural differences that could lead to someone being banned and it already happened

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ra...

[LoveSpuds]

@Imalwaysright

Way to pick an edge case squire, anyone with any common sense can safely navigate an online games lobby without offending people by using racist or offensive language. We all know, by the time we reach our teens, what is acceptable and what isnt, Biodead is not at risk of accidentally getting banned for being accidentally racist, you are clutching at straws here.

Incidentally, this exact situation cropped up in football here in the UK a few years back when Louis Suarez referred to an opponent by using the word 'negro' in a particularly bruising game. It's all about intent also, why would you even bring up the ethnicity of your opponent in an argument during a game of footy unless it was derogatory? (I say this as a Liverpool FC fan -Suarez played for Liverpool at the time - and someone who dislikes the player he called 'negro', but again, it's hard to explain why, after being takled by Evra, Saurez felt the need to comment on Evra's ethnicity).

[Imalwaysright]

The point I was trying to make is that even if you are respectful you could still be banned because not everyone speaks english or knows that in english speaking countries " negro" is a derogatory term and btw this happened more times

https://forums.ubi.com/show...

https://steamcommunity.com/...

As for Suarez his "crime" was to express himself in his own language and I even remember people demanding that he apologized. I don't know about him but I would NEVER apologize for being portuguese.

[Teflon02]

Portuguese aren't respectful to black people. I have a Portuguese friend who last year visited his family home. He told me they had alot of racism and also Greece as well. Next, negro isn't a racial slur. You're not getting banned for saying that. It's a word of identifying. Not a word of respect or disrespect. It's its the er that's the problem and Ga can be. It's used only with people familiar with the person in SOME cases so it's better to avoid. Also. If you're online, you have no reason to identifying randoms by race. You're asking for a problem doing that in general. If they're telling you about their race for some reason. You listen and don't identify them. It's the most respectful thing you can do. My background is Jamaican and because Chinese are very common in jamaica and are basically our brothers and sisters. My mom and everyone who grew up in Jamaica call ALL Asians chin as a nickname. I know as a Canadian black man, who lives in a extremely multicultural city, that even though my mom used that growing up and with her Asian friends. I know not Th o use that in such a way because, while it's a word with respect in jam, it's not the case here.

[Imalwaysright]

Teflon02

You started your comment by making a racist remark so kudos for that. Also, yes people were banned from games for saying that word and I don't care for your bullshit and for your excuses. Saying "negro" in portuguese and spanish is the same exact thing as saying "black" or "white". It's not a derogatory term and no one should get banned just because they're expressing themselves in their language or because they're part of a culture.

Suarez, the football player that we were talking about was banned for a handful of matches so don't come saying that "negro" isn't a derogatory term in english speaking countries. Hell, look at the stupidity that surrounded this https://metro.co.uk/2018/01...

But anyway my initial point is that people can be banned even if they aren't doing anything wrong and they ARE.

[BioDead]

In my language, too, there is some words we use that doesn't sound good in other languages, such as english, estonian and swedish.

[RabbitFly]

He is highlighting how culturally insensetive you are in your American-centric view of the world.

And it becomes besutifully ironic when you blatantly deny someone of a different cultural to be the same.

Many european countries have had public debates about the issue he presented and in many of them describing someone as Black has been deemed the worse offender.
Not negro or neger.

[Teflon02]

Yeah, we'll on psn you're not getting banned for bad language in a game, unless you're every day going on and being racist to thousands of ppl. Then you are going to get in trouble and deserve it. With English not being your first language, your threat isn't being banned. It's racist a holes like the banned dude and jerks who wanna laugh at someone else's expense

[chris235]

this blogger seems to have to learn a LOT about nature.

[johndoe11211]

Your comment makes no sense.

[2pacalypsenow]

What does nature have to do with this?

[poppatron]

👏🏽

[SilverDemon]

I got like 80 downvote for simply stating that sony shouldn't have the right to take away what I bought for any reason

People were cheering for having their rights taken away

Smh

[AnubisG]

Don't you worry about it. You are right and don't let those 80 fools bother you. They are all fools and they are like that do to hate and fear.

[FunAndGun]

Then don't sign the ToS agreement when you purchase a digital item. That is how you protect yourself from having to play by the platform holders rules.

I am absolutely cheering them taking this guys games away for a week/month.

[TekoIie]

So if I use something like an aimbot in an online game Sony cant ban me from playing right? I bought the game and Sony cant do anything because that would be taking my rights away...

Quit crying about downvotes too. It's kinda pathetic.

[Sono421]

Terrible analogy. Aim bot ruins others player's experience and is unavoidable. Dickhead talking sh*t online? That's what the mute button is for.. a racist as*hole is still just an as*hole and you treat him like all other as*holes online.. you mute them. Hate in any form is bad, one hate is no worse than any other form of hate, a toxic player is toxic, whether he's racist or just a dou*he bag yelling random slurs at you, both should get the same treatment. Trying to compare a toxic player to a player straight up cheating is the dumbest argument i've heard all day. The fact you even have 3 likes shows a severe lack of critical thought.

[Christopher]

***Aim bot ruins others player's experience and is unavoidable. Dickhead talking sh*t online? That's what the mute button is for.. ***

Aim bot, you can leave the game and join a different one.

Racist in comments, you can mute.

Same ability to control your experience, only you're fine with someone having to mute people and not have the ability to communicate strategically with team mates but want others to handle cheaters for you rather than you handle them yourself, which is possible.

Both can be handled by the user, only you're supporting one over the other and both affect the enjoyment of the game.

[TekoIie]

"Terrible analogy. Aim bot ruins others player's experience and is unavoidable."

Nope. I bought the game and it's unacceptable to ban me from something I paid to access even if I break ToS. If you disagree then you're infringing upon my rights.

"Trying to compare a toxic player to a player straight up cheating is the dumbest argument i've heard all day. The fact you even have 3 likes shows a severe lack of critical thought."

it is absolutely analogous. The argument is that you should not be able to ban a user from being able to access a game they bought even if it the person shows that they're ruining others experience. The OP said that you should only lose access to your games for 'illegal activity' and apparently hate speech doesn't line-up with that so I don't understand how using a mod is a worse offence.

You need to explain why an aimbot is one order worse than repeated incidents of racism and flat out admitting it was to be malicious for my analogy to be false. You then need to explain why it's okay to suspend access to someone's online library for aimbotting but not for racial attacks against other users on the platform. Or would you prefer to argue aimbotting is far worse, LOL?

And quit crying about the upvotes. It's even more pathetic than winging about downvotes. Seriously the amount of people these days that are desperate to have their ego vindicated by upvotes is a joke...

[rainslacker]

I'd imagine the people cheering have never "had their rights taken away".

Some people are more against racism than they are about protecting a racist from having access to their digital games. I like that myself, because I feel there are times that people take it too far, and not enough people are held accountable for their actions.

I guess my question is, don't the people who play on the network also have the right to not be abused by some a**hole who thinks they can do whatever they want? How much can Sony do to get their message across? Sometimes, a public statement that it's not acceptable can make others think, and at the very least, if this guy keeping his games is important, then maybe he'll think twice before being a twat in the future.

Sony, and other companies also have the right to maintain their service the way they see fit, and people act like this is some unjustifiable act against the consumer, when in this case, the line is clearly defined that Sony won't accept this kind of behavior from their users against other users.

I've been banned on here for a various amounts of time for what the mods call personal attacks. I gripe about it to Chris, to which he basically tells me to suck it up, at which point we have a long conversation about why he's wrong, and I'm right. But, in me doing so, I don't believe I call him names, or become hateful towards him. I may be aggressive, but I do respect him, and in the process he's firm about the rules, and makes it clear that he won't tolerate that kind of behavior. I don't expect Sony, or a major corporation to pay someone for hours of work that Christopher may spend with me explaining such things. But, if I had all my games stripped away from me for a time because of an indiscretion, even if momentary, then I'd certainly think twice about doing it again. Here, it's not as pressing, as I have no financial investment, but I have a thousand or more in digital purchases on PSN. That means something to me, and enough that I remain respectful....which I do anyways, because it's not generally that hard to do so.

[sprinterboy]

Did the guy lose access to all their sp only games too? I agree the ban should have been longer certainly online games but I agree you should still have access to play your sp only games.

[johndoe11211]

He lost access to everything.

[djplonker]

He sent links to white supremacy websites.....
Racism is really dangerous and can lead people to get hurt or killed or people being judged and treated differently because of the colour of their skin.

Not only should he be banned he should be put on a list like sex offenders are and if he ever committed a hate crime and he is on the racist list lock him up with a 6 foot rapist who happens to be black.

See if his opinion changes after he finds out what its like to have some black inside him.

[sprinterboy]

Cheers, then I guess I don't agree with it, online ban sure and make it longer than he got but regardless of him being a absolute dickhead he should have access to his sp games he's payed for.
Having said that though there is a terms and conditions which I get no one reads but I would be mega pissed to lose my sp only content too, especially if your at say a younfg age where you haven't really grown up yet.

[EuIderink]

Finally someone talking sense. When you buy something like a game should always have access to the offline portion to it imo no matter what the reason.
Online you need to comply to the rules that are set, since u can't own the online part unless dedicated servers. Would be funny though if this applies to music and such.
Hi we saw your racist comment on an online music vid now we gonna confiscate all your music to punish you xD

[Mr_Writer85]

Don't want to agree to the T&C?

Don't buy digital.

Pretty simple.

[sagapo]

Remember this one, lol. Hilarious
https://m.youtube.com/watch...

[johndoe11211]

WOW!!!! I didn't even know about that one. As someone who is completely against obscene language I totally disagree with this. Gaming companies are now policing what you can say in the privacy of your own house? Is this clip real?

[johndoe11211]

@shaggy2303

Ok, I didn't know that. I don't play these sports games so I couldn't tell. I guess that's fair seeing that you can't use obscene language on a real sports field either.

[carcarias]

@johndoe11211

"seeing that you can't use obscene language on a real sports field either."

I take it you never watch soccer? ;)

[Vanfernal]

"The term hate speech is such a broad term that is being weaponized right now by some very unscrupulous people"

“To further clarify the reasons for the ban hammer, I already know why as I stated in my previous email so it’s not a surprise to me that I got banned. talking about forced ‘migration’ into the West, directing other PSN users to various chans and White Nationalist content, and calling other players n*ggers and f*ggots, etc.”

Yeah... You can totally see the grey area in that guy's behavior. I think they are really reaching when they went for the "hate speech" ban. /s

[johndoe11211]

It is not about whether or not he should have been banned or whether or not what he said was hate speech, it's about someone loosing access to their entire library for doing something wrong online. Yes, the things he said is considered hate speech but so is using the wrong pronoun. How the hell is it right to lose access to your gaming library, sp games and all, that you may have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for over making nasty comments online? Block him from playing online so that no one has to listen to his garbage, do not block him from accessing his entire library. How hard is it to understand the point.

[PhantomTommy]

He didn't lose access to his entire library, he lost access to his digital games which he bought through Sony's store. Sony has a right to take that content away, you may not like that in which case you are completely free to shop elsewhere, but you accepted their terms when you bought those games. You really don't need to worry too much, I've never had a single game taken from me, neither have you or any of the people commenting on your blog because most people don't go around calling people ""n*gg*rs and f*gg*ts". You don't have an example of anyone losing access to their digital games because they used the wrong pronoun. It's also important to remember it's a temporary restriction, he'll be back online by the end of the week. Who knows? Maybe a week without Overcooked will help him calm down and realize nobody wants to hear his shit. Again, if you think Sony shouldn't have the ability to restrict the content you paid for, you are free to shop elsewhere.

[Vanfernal]

Aww. So the racist *sshole lost access to the content he bought with his hard earned money for being a cancer to other people online? Boohoo. We're not talking that he called someone who identifies themselves as a gender fluid avocado toast by the wrong pronoun. This guy was out there ruining the experience for other people who spent THEIR hard earned money to play their games. It was was so bad that they felt like they had to report him, most people just ignore this ignorant behavior. Sony denied him access to his content for ONE WEEK. That's a time out. It's like saying "hey, you better reconsider how you behave yourself". And this guy would rather double down and try to become a martyr for "free speech" than play nice. Cause that's ALL he has to do. NOT BE AN *SSHOLE.

Actions have consequences. There are terms of service for a reason. This guy wants to keep pushing then by all means, let him lose his content. It will be nobody's fault but himself. Let's not make this a bigger issue than it is. The guy is an idiot and will pay the consequences for his idiot ways. People who don't go around blatantly making other people miserable online have nothing to worry about.

[johndoe11211]

"You don't have an example of anyone losing access to their digital games because they used the wrong pronoun."

No I don't but that is not the point. The point is that using the wrong pronoun IS considered hate speech in a lot of places and you can be banned from social media platforms for doing it. How long before it reaches online gaming communities?

[LoveSpuds]

How hard is it to grasp that you are only purchasing a license to temporary access to a piece of media, tied completely to your account.

Do something as vile as this guy did, and you are in violation of the terms and conditions you agreed too when opening your account and that comes with serious implications where your license agreements are concerned.

[carcarias]

"Aww. So the racist *sshole lost access to the content he bought.....We're not talking that he called someone who identifies themselves as a gender fluid avocado toast by the wrong pronoun."

I can't speak for @johndoe11211 but I'm guessing he's feels the same way I do.

Let's get the ToS nonsense out the way first. If Sony have that in their terms then they are within their rights to do what they did. Big deal. That's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing whether it's the right way forward, whether it should be praised and whether it's a 'slippery slope'.

Let's start by looking at that part of your comment Van. You're basically saying that it's ok for someone to have this type of punishment because you personally, from a moral point of view, have no sympathy for them.

I'm arguing that morals should not be the basis for deciding this kind of thing though. Banning him from online play makes sense. It's not a moral judgement, it's about providing people who payed for online play an environment where they can do so without being abused.

Depriving him of his offline/single player content makes no sense.....unless you're saying, 'I think he deserved it because I've decided to judge him from a moral perspective and I want him to suffer more'. That's like putting a muzzle on a dog because it bit you but also deciding to keep prodding it with a sharp stick for week just to get revenge. Well, maybe not the best analogy but hopefully you get where I'm coming from ;)

It might be easy to ignore this incident because we don't think much of the guy who did it, but quite a few people here can see how more and more words, regardless of context, are being re-defined as hate speech/misogynistic/homophobic . It might not be long before we see bans like this for what we, at the moment, consider innocuous comments.

So, should we be sending a message to companies saying we're not comfortable with this kind of punishment with regards to offline content? Doing it now, while we can. It's easy to say, 'Just buy physical' but what if we let things slide, thinking politically correct nonsense will never effect us because we buy discs, and then the industry goes 100% digital?

It's just food for thought.

[Vanfernal]

I get the "slippery slope". This case is not. It's a black and white (no pun intended) blatant case of hate speech. There is no context where calling people "n*ggers and f*aggots" is not hate speech. So the author is making a hypothetical case about it being something that is free for interpretation. When you call someone who identifies as a woman "sir", that is definitely a slippery slope. But this guy admitted he is a racist, uses homophobic and racist slurs, send people white supremacist websites and is completely unrepentant about it. In fact, he doubled down on it. So we can sit here and discuss how more and more words are considered hate speech nowadays, but again, this is about the most clear-cut case you could find. The guy completely deserves repercussions for his behavior and if he can't tone it down his actions and keeps doing it and eventually gets perma banned, that's on him. It's not that hard not being a complete *sshole towards strangers.

[carcarias]

@Vanfernal

You're right, it's a cast iron case here with regards to the hate speech but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

The question here is whether it's correct to ban him from his paid games that are offline/single player? I don't think so, no matter how much an arse this guy is. From a moral perspective, what a person does offline in their own house with things they've paid for, digital or otherwise, Tos or otherwise, is up to them, imho. Bear in mind I'm not asking, 'Do we care about this individual and do we feel sorry for him'. I don't. However, it doesn't change the fact that the punishment over reaches it purpose (to keep online people safe from abuse) here.

Political correctness has been snow-balling for a decade or more, as has the push back against it, thankfully. It unfortunately causes division. However, companies usually play things safe. So while we might be having people banned a week for saying the 'n' word now, who's to say we won't be seeing people banned a month for calling someone a 'c$%k-sucker' 3 years from now? It could be interpreted as homophobic, after all.

5 years after that? Maybe simply saying, 'There are only two genders' would get you banned, and by that time maybe it's a perma-ban in keeping with an ever-increasing intolerance for not towing the PC line. All perfectly legit because it's in a ToS and maybe we'll be digital only by that time so physical won't help.

So, why not say to Sony 'Well done for taking that guy offline and letting people avoid his hate speech, but cool it with the ban on offline play' while we can?

[rainslacker]

If people don't want that to be the way forward, then they need to stop agreeing to the terms set forth by these companies.

One doesn't even need the slippery slope to figure that out. It's not like bans like these are overly common.

If people keep agreeing while feeling this way, then they're basically saying, "Well, we want ownership, but we will won't stand by that principal because digital is so convenient."

Don't blame the system, or call out the gamers who are against abusive behavior online, blame the people who accept it and keep agreeing. I imagine that the people who say that they should have rights, also have brought a lot of digital content, which is why they feel so strongly about this. But, do any of you not buy games digitally, and make it known that you would if these ToS don't exist in the way they do. As it is, the companies will change if enough people want that.

Of course, the vast majority of people aren't likely to ever have a problem with this, and it's more likely a store will shut down before they are banned. I respect and appreciate stating high principals, and I even say the same thing at the same time. But I don't do it at the expense of all the other consumers on the same service who also have a right to play in a fun and safe environment, without having to feel uncomfortable because of the random person who thinks their opinion is more important than any other person's enjoyment.

[carcarias]

@rainslacker

'If people don't want that to be the way forward, then they need to stop agreeing to the terms set forth by these companies.'

You're not wrong there.

[sampsonon]

"what the hell is hate speech?"

Please stop. We all know what hate speech is and hate is never "vague".
I hear racist children saying the N word over and over and over a lot.

i also don't believe someone should lose their library for it, but hey, if you spew racist chants like some do online and you know it's a no no on the service you are using? you deserve what you get.

it's clear that Sony doesn't want some family sitting around with kids watching their brother playing call of duty and hear "N*GGER!!!!" on the speakers.

hate speech is clear and we all know what it is.

[johndoe11211]

"Please stop. We all know what hate speech is and hate is never "vague""
"hate speech is clear and we all know what it is."

I have absolutely no idea what world you're living in. It's definitely not this planet.

[sampsonon]

wow! did it take you a long time to come up with nothing?

[djplonker]

HE CALLED BLACK PEOPLE THE N WORD FFS

he also sent psn messages with a link to web supremacy websites.

HOW IS THAT NOT RACISM?

What world are you living in if you think thats ok?

[Epzaos]

Won't cheer about the ban(in fact I don't care at all).

He did come off particularly smug though, even in his email at Sony.
Yeah, I agree that he should not have lost access to the games he bought, but I certainly won't feel sorry for him, this was clearly a case of playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes.

Still, it can be avoided by making a second account and making all your purchases from there, and since you don't play with that account, you won't lose access, but I suppose he didn't think of that.

[FanboysKiller]

He should hire a lawyer, it's easy to judge from our own desires but it's more complicated than that.

[rainslacker]

I'd rather this case be heard where the justification isn't such a political hot topic. While judges are supposed to remain impartial, they still have their own feelings, and nobody really wants to be the one defending practices that are socially and morally unacceptable. A court, at least in the US, does have the right to disallow any part of a ToS, if it's considered unfair. One such instance is the forced binding arbitration set forth in most ToS. While it's there, no one can be forced to abide by it, because it's illegal to prevent someone from pursuing their legal rights. At most, arbitration can be made into a first step, but you don't have to be bound by it. The reason it still exists, is because it's usually cheaper for all parties involved, and more often than not, a amicable agreement can be found through it.

I'm sure out of the many bans out there, there are better cases which can be heard.

[Kosic]

I will admit I didn't read your full article. I got a feeling the guy in question isn't telling the full story. He was banned for being a dick and abusing other players. Could be children he was bad mouthing as well. I'm glad he got banned.

For him to have his account blocked. He tried to poke the bear and for that he got what he deserved. If you were truly sorry and were worried to lose your rented content (as it's a service) you wouldn't continue to be a jack ass and mess it up for yourself. He has only himself to blame, not sony, not Microsoft or Nintendo.

If he was to act this way in real life and every person walked on. But one day. Someone decided to actually step up to this bully. Would you feel sorry for the bully for getting a beating and losing a few teeth? I sure wouldn't.

If you are a normal person and act with common sense. You have NOTHING to worry about with your digital service blocking you. My psn account has been active for many years (something like 8+) and it's still going. You want to know why? It's because I'm not a retard like the guy in the previous article.

Tldr: don't be a prick and everything will be ok.

[yomfweeee]

To everyone making the blanket statement, "it's in the TOS", please be aware that just because TOS says something, doesn't make it legal. A lot of TOS wouldn't hold up if challenged in court.

I'm not saying that is the case here, but TOS isn't the final say.

[rainslacker]

From a purely legal stand point, while what you say is true, until it's challenged in court, it is considered legal, and Sony's right. It's hard to say if it would hold up in court. There are a lot of things in the ToS that have to be considered beyond just what the company has a right to strip away from the customer. We're talking about a licensing issue, where the consumer doesn't actually own the license. The lack of ownership muddies up the waters, and the ToS are written in such a way to obfuscate that as much as possible to keep it so they retain as much rights as possible.

Forced binding arbitration is the only thing I can think of that's ever been challenged, and the courts haven't ruled that companies can't say arbitration is what has to be done, just that the people involved can't be forced to abide by the terms of the arbitration agreement, and have the right to appeal, and move it forward to court.

[yomfweeee]

They should ban the user from all online components of all games and PSN features, but allow them to play their games.

[ShadowWolf712]

You have no idea how DRM works, do you?

[yomfweeee]

They could implement if they wanted to, there's no question about that. They essentially already do the same within games requiring PS Plus online access. They block you from online that way, they can block you from online if you are banned. They could also do the same thing to things that don't require PS Plus (free to play games, etc).

[Christopher]

I'm thinking you don't know the difference between DRM and multiplayer access. @yomfweeee didn't say anything about DRM, only about multiplayer access, which are two entirely different things. People can already get banned from an online game by the game developer and still play it offline. Sony should therefore be able to ban a user ID from accessing all online game environments without removing access to their games.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

"Gamers" can be an extremely toxic group containing many closeted, sometimes clearly visible, misogynistic, homophobic, and racist views. They are triggered often. Most of these gamers belong to a certain segment of the world population that appears to get angrier and angrier on an almost daily basis. I won't say who they are because we all know.

I enjoy gaming but "gamers" are just verifiable jerks

[NoneYuh]

Guys, it’s pretty obvious whats hate speech and what isn’t. It’s also pretty obvious that you really shouldn’t make certain jokes (rape joke people I’m looking at you). Yet people continue to do it and we’re supposed to feel bad for them when they actually get in trouble. Everyone on here being extra about it needs to think about what they say and those they associate with say. I curse like a sailor, but I never have to worry about getting a ban because I’m not dropping slurs. I’ve been told I should get raped before just because I won a game. Well that’s certainly not something to joke about or imply so I reported the loser. You all whine about freedom and censoring. Listen, if you stop being an insensitive asshat who word vomits then this will never be something you run into.

[Rude-ro]

What if said person only played online games like fortnite or apex? They would not be able to access them right this making any in game purchases voided ? Cod black ops 4 etc...

100% no one should lose access to their games, no matter the company, but as players keep moving towards the digital world... they get less control.

Now, I also do not believe mountains made from mole hills either. As in, there are enough over blown stories that are falsely reported on.
Like how anthem was “breaking” consoles.. but never happened.

[Mindphyx77822]

Oh boo hooo he looses his game library,Solution don't be a damn racist. I'm so sick of hearing gamers under 26 yrs old say N this and N that it never ends thats why I rarly play online unLess its with my friends list. He should loose his games and be banned for life.

[AK91]

I 100% agree with you but I think some people on this site (those with admin privileges) might disagree with you.

This censorship nonsense needs to stop otherwise it will be the end of gaming.

[Christopher]

Oh, please do go on. Considering (those with admin privileges) actually agrees that the user should not have lost access to his games but been banned from multiplayer access to all his games. But, please, do go on, what do (those with admin privileges) think? We obviously don't know, so please enlighten us.

[Mindphyx77822]

Only a racist defends a racist bottom line

[Atanasrikard]

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Bottom line.

[2pacalypsenow]

Only an idiot would read that and think he's defending racism.

[Christopher]

He's not defending a racist, he's questioning the level of punishment versus the crime.

[rainslacker]

I actually believe the topic of digital ownership rights is important. Unfortunately, it's often ignored in conversations which are less inciteful, and then it gets attached to instances of racism where it undermines the topic because it means believing in digital ownership rights, also means supporting racist comments. In general, it's hard to have a conversation without it getting derailed by the less important issue of there being abusive a**hats online.

@Chris

His punishment was for a month. When I was a kid, I was caught shoplifting. My parents were furious. I was grounded for a month, and wasn't allowed to play my video games. I brought my video games myself more often than not, so it wasn't like it was my parents purchase. Plus, the laws of ownership actually state if they gave it to me, then it's still technically mine.

I was living in their house, and they had that right to take away my games, under the understood terms of living in their household.

When it comes to consoles, or online services, we are living in their house. Sony has the right to ground people, and take away their games. They have the right to do it permanently. Same way as on here if I'm abusive to another person, you block me from access to discuss on the site. If I made racist hateful comments, I wouldn't get a temporary ban, you'd permaban me. Guy got off with basically a month long warning, same as you've dished out on countless occassions. No money on this site, and we don't own anything, but it's not really any different.

I'd expect if he does it again, Sony may consider further action which may include a permaban. Would that be right? I'd assume that the people he abuses would be perfectly fine with it. Many others would probably be fine with him losing everything. We live in a society where there are rules, and there should be consequences for breaking the rules. You've said as much to me many times, and told me to suck it up many times. Even if I disagree with the reasons for my bans, I have to live with the consequences of my actions.

[_LarZen_]

Yeah he should get banned from accessing online functionality. Not lose access to this games even if he’s an idiot.

[MadLad]

I could speak for days of my opinions on the state of freedom of speech here in the states; let alone the UK and Canada.

To put it simple, I entirely agree with the author. These are your games. You pay a premium for them. Just because we're moving towards an all digital future, that shouldn't grant service providers (console manufacturers) the chance to block you out of your own products.
This would be like allowance to come to your house and seize the console/your games, or installing an update that bricked your console in years prior.

I perfectly understand disallowing online interactivity, for however the amount of time, to people being hateful, if that's the want of the service provider. Granting yourself the power of taking away your product, purchased, let alone 3rd party products, just because you own the storefront, is too much power to allow companies, and that really needs to be looked at and fixed.

[Cobra951]

". . . what the hell is hate speech? "

That's exactly the sticking point. Hate speech is whatever the political factions currently ruling the roost say it is. "Hate speech" is in fact a made-up term of recent vintage. It does not appear in the Constitution, and you will see no mention of it in anything published in the 20th-century or before. It is a dangerous avenue to censorship, since it isn't restricted to a set of few words, but can be imputed from the sense of entire opinion pieces, or what's depicted in art.

Any service has the right to cut someone off they deemed undesirable. No one has the right to steal what you've paid for. Confiscation is reserved for the law, and even they abuse it way too often.

[DoubleYourDose]

You lost me at "loosing".

[ShadowWolf712]

DRM requires periodic check-ins with the network to verify licenses, or when checking for ownership to allow a download. Cutting an account off from that network = necessarily cutting them off from the DRM verification process and access to any uninstalled games.

So yes, cutting him off from the network will cut him off from his games. The only way for that not to happen would be to sever his titles from DRM, which is not a reasonable expectation, being blunt.

What's sickening to me are the people acting as if "Hate Speech" is somehow vague and shadowy when this dumbass was open and blatant with it. Tossing out racial slurs left and right, and even recruiting for fringe racist groups. This is not some "slippery slope", this is a clear-cut and appropriate application of the term to his words and actions. Y'all can stuff that right now.

[MadLad]

I understand terms of service, though I still, fundamentally, disagree with cutting someone off from something that they purchased purely for being a crap individual. This was never the case in the past, and just because we are now being pushed into a digital era, calling a premium purchase now a "rental" is slimy.

All the same, reading your post, it seems you're almost happy that the man lost things that he paid for, just because you don't like the way he speaks. Leave the whole terms of service aspect of it aside; I want to speak simply of world view for a moment. Are you fine with the seizing of personal assets only for the fact the person in question could be an outspoken bigot in some form?

[Christopher]

***Cutting an account off from that network = necessarily cutting them off from the DRM verification process and access to any uninstalled games.***

Not true. A single developer of a game can ban a user from a single or all of their online games. They can also ban access to those games. This is on PSN. So, if they can ban just multiplayer access, then so should Sony. The validation for online access as it is already exists since it validates for many games if you have PS+ or not. This is outside of DRM validation.

[chiefJohn117]

Agreed

[jordan22290ps]

First, he was banned for 7 days, not a month. We all know there's plenty of dumb stuff said during online play. And yet stories like these are few and far between. Which means companies aren't just auto spamming bans of this severity but rather reviewing individually and making an informed decision. Which is good. Now we don't know what was exactly said or what he was really doing, but he literally admitted to being a racist POS. So I can only imagine how he was acting in game when he thought nothing would come of it. Now to me, I think 7 days away is warranted. You're not responsible enough. And honestly, if I was Sony or ANY company that makes products, I wouldn't want someone like this using my product. I'd think, "fuck this guy, don't use my shit and don't buy it in the future. I don't want you associated with me in any way". Is it a slippery slope? Sure. But every decision can lead to a slippery slope, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision to make. We all know blocking online stuff won't do anything. And to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if there's workarounds to him still playing his games anyways during the ban. If this truly scares you, don't buy digital. And if you buy digital, don't be a POS online. Sony isn't gonna start banning like Facebook or Twitter for every little remark made.

[Bleucrunch]

I agree on banning the gamer from playing online because they are horrible and say horrible racist things, however, blocking the games he purchased is a different story.

The racist gamer purchased those games and should be able to play them whenever that racist wants.

Ban him for a year if you want (That is a REAL MESSAGE and make an example of this gamer) just don't block his purchases....that doesn't make sense to me.

[carcarias]

Couldn't agree more.

Suspending online game access temporarily is fine, everyone has the right to play a game without being subjected to racist abuse.

Banning access to their offline/single player digital library? Is that what has happened? I didn't even know that was a thing. Completely wrong imo.

Lastly, I was going to come here to say a big problem is that the criteria for what is considered 'hate speech' is getting so broad (due to an over passionate, almost fanatical and militant section of society) that all we're going to end up doing is making people more likely to simply clam up and be less trusting of each other, you know?

Anyway, you seem to have that bit covered too ;)

[Silly gameAr]

Sorry, but this post comes off like a 5 year old that's mad that he can't offend people when he wants to offend people. You don't have to be an annoying, extreme sjw to be a decent person online. The guy got what he deserved. Only the people that are like minded believe that some sort of injustice was done to the person.

[The7Reaper]

His fault for buying digital for one and then acting like a dumbass online, no sympathy.

[notachance]

lol you think this is a recent problem? this is something as old as the law itself
namely law vs right, of which the most infamous example is the existence of death penalty.

and you are oversimplifying the problem too much because you didn't take into account the most important part of this problem: the trial (or in this case probs moderator review)

- firstly there are two parts of his *first* punishment, the severity and the time (banned from his library AND a week, not a month), completely ignoring the time part is a totally wrong start to an argument.
- secondly you didn't even elaborate that despite his initial punishment, he went ahead and taunted Sony's support (in this case being something like a judge) with yet another racist remark, therefore completely obscuring to your readers that there is some sort of process happened between his first offence and his current situation.

the time and process matters, focusing on just the severity part is completely wrong. There is a clear difference between life sentence and an overnight stay behind the bar.

and you glossed over the most important part: the damn rule of ownership
is it your hard earned money? yes
does that make you own the damn thing? NO IN THIS CASE
you don't agree to their decision? go physical or buy from GoG

[Fluttershy77]

They banned him from his digital games for a month? GOOD! I don't care about a gdamn racist. Maybe he'll think it better next time he decides to make online racist comments. I hope they take the games FOREVER. By the way making racist comments, and harassing people is punish by the law... so, yeah that should happen too
hate speech is an illegal activity too...
"if you are found to be doing illegal activities on the network, not for freaking hate speech"
This the kind of things racist / white supremacist usually say.

[2pacalypsenow]

Being a racist is not illegal, unless you physically harm the person.

First amendment protects you from that.

It doesn't however protect you from consequences (loosing a job etc...)

[Fluttershy77]

Harassing other people with hate speech is illegal. You can think all you want how superior your race is, you can even post an essay on the subject, or even a video online as long as is performed in a civilized way (and do not encourage other people to commit crimes) but you can't harass other human being with hate speech even if is just verbally.
Even in the case that you just verbally diminish another person because of their race, they can sue you and they'll most likely win.

[2pacalypsenow]

It's not illegal unless it become an attack or stalking, otherwise this person would be prosecuted and charged with a crime.

As stupid as it is to send racist messages on PSN, its not a crime.

And the justice system when it comes to hate crimes is broken, so I agree they would most likely win, just like that person who was "emotionally damaged" because someone had a picture with "Blue lives matter" at their workplace and she got $100k.

Stupidity falls on both sides.

[rainslacker]

He was being abusive to others on the network. Don't those people also have the right to not be abused online? What right is more important, and what reasonable company would choose the "freedom of speech" rights of a single user, over the right of others to be free from abuse.

Sometimes, examples have to be made, and warnings or worse punishments have to be handed out. I don't know what more can make people be respectful if they can't do it on their own than taking away their purchases. That's a pretty strong incentive to not be an a**hole. What's sad is that people need incentive more than just being a good person, but that's a different issue.

Also, a private entity has no obligation to protect a person's free speech rights, nor are they required to abide by any constitutional law. They are forced to follow constitutional laws which is why they have to abide by them themselves, but in doing so, they also have the rights afforded to them under the constitution or constitutional law.

Oh, and hate speech is explicitly excluded from freedom of speech. One is free to feel those things, and even speak in a way that is racist, but they can't abuse others, or incite hate among others through said speech. Consider its the only thing that is specifically excluded from free speech, and that speaks volumes about how culture and society feels about such things, even if there are individuals who don't.

[MadLad]

So on an ethical level, you feel it's warranted to block someone from their own assets for having bigoted views.

Would you please justify that position and just how one has to do with the other?

[Fluttershy77]

@rainslacker said it perfectly , read that!

[MadLad]

@flutter

I ask YOU to justify your ethical viewpoint of justifying the blocking of one's goods from them, based on their views; whether they be bigoted or not, and you point me towards another person's post who simply regurgitates your opinion on matters of hate speech in general.

I'm not pro hate speech. I think bigots are pukes. What is your justification for that dictating they could lose their property? I get barring them from online interaction; but neither of you once expressed that idea and we both know that's possible with today's games.

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

I gives zero f#cks about a racist losing his game library. In real life saying those kinds of things to the wrong person can cost you to lose more than video games...

[MadLad]

So what you're saying is seizure of property is fine, as long as you have a bigoted outlook? Could you justify that viewpoint otherwise? Who does and does not deserve their property?

[Tetsujin]

The root issue is the guy didn't fully read the ToS to know his actions will cause him to lose what he purchased online. Too many people are having a debate regarding what is considered hate speech, and why it's good/bad he lost his digital library; instead of actually seeing what the main problem is.

Whether I agree with Sony, the community, and/or the guy's actions is irrelevant - the point is had the guy read the ToS he would have thought a second time before running his mouth, knowing what he paid for "can" be locked away. From a business standpoint, Sony did the right thing because toxic behavior isn't allowed on PSN (as with other online gaming mediums), and banning his games in general is a legal action because the ToS says in plain English how this will happen depending on your actions. The guy claims to be a racist, is proud to be one, yet cries because he can't spend the 5 minutes to read the ToS, which shows lack of intelligence and common sense on his part.

To those who are in favor of the guy's "Freedom of speech," think about this for a min. Did you actually read the ToS; not skim over, not pick certain areas, but actually READ the ENTIRE ToS. If yes, pull certain areas out to help with your part of the debate. This does two things: One it shows you're able to read, and two, it helps with your side of the debate. If you did NOT read the ToS first, what are you actually debating? Why are you involved in a debate just to voice without logic?

In short - Read the entire ToS before acting how you are in person. When in doubt, ask. If you're a proud racist, stick to offline gaming and leave the toxic behavior to yourself. If you still want to "see how far you can go," you lose all right to complain when something gets taken away from you because of your actions. This applies to social media as well - if you feel you unjustly banned, pull from the ToS where the company is in the wrong (not right) for their actions.

[Atanasrikard]

Social media is a whole different animal and you shouldn't be bringing it up in this discussion. In this instance, however, you are correct about the ToS.

But let's put the shoe on the other foot, what happens when Sony bans you because it was offensive to put "it shows you are able to read" in your post, obviously offending all of those people who struggle with dyslexia.

I have no issue with him being banned because of his CONTINUED toxic and harassing behavior. Banning him for his garbage rhetoric, I have a problem with. A would also argue, as I have previously, we have mute/block buttons for a reason.

[Christopher]

***Sony bans you because it was offensive to put "it shows you are able to read" in your post, obviously offending all of those people who struggle with dyslexia. ***

How long did it take you to come up with something as stupid as that?

[Atanasrikard]

@Christopher

Probably a lot less time then it took you to come up with that.

[SIdepocket]

The problem with your thesis is this:

“If we champion this decision now then we are going down a slippery slope that will take us into a gaming nightmare that we will all regret.”

What is this horrible, nightmare dystopian future you are imagining we are heading toward? If you can’t think of a logical and reasonable answer to that statement, then perhaps you’re not making the point you think you are. Sony is still a company that relies on their customers in order to thrive, they’re not likely to take drastic, consumer-unfriendly action unless the behavior being punished is severe.

The reality is very simple: don’t say or do sh!tty things online, or there might be real-world consequences. If you aren’t someone who behaves that way, you have nothing to worry about. If you do, then that’s something you’re going to have to think about.

[2pacalypsenow]

"The reality is very simple: don’t say or do sh!tty things online, or there might be real-world consequences. "

What is considered that?

I mean if someone claims they're a lion and you tell them no you're not because you're a human and they consider it hate speech.

How the hell do you argue that?

[SIdepocket]

Who would argue something so preposterous?

Countries that have hate speech laws (like mine, Canada) require the speech in question to be reasonably hateful against a person’s race, gender, sexual preference, etc. Most social media platforms have similar rules, and I expect Sony & Microsoft has something similar in place.

Again, Sony relies on their customers to stay in business. I don’t think they’re going to start banning people or taking away content over ridiculous online arguments like the one you propose. I know sometimes it feels as if the world is sliding into a void of stupidity and despair, but this is really just Sony finally taking action against a long-standing problem that’s been overlooked for too long. No sense in you getting worked up over something so ludicrous.

[Kumakai]

freedom of speech let’s you say why you want to say. It doe not protect you from the reactions of private services like psn who have a responsibility to protect its users. You agree to the terms of service when you sign up (that thing you never read the first time you join a service or get new game). Violating the terms of service is something the user needs to take responsibility for, because they agreed and activated a legally binding contract on that sign up.

ppl get this wrong all the time. You can be a scummy racist and that’s your right, but our rights say we don’t have to put up with your shit and we should expect that the services we are paying for should provide a basic level of protection from scummy people. psn, xbl, steam etc are opt in private services, not public govt operated fundamental rights.

If you want to exercise the full extent of your free speech, do it on your own website that you yourself are responsible for. Then you can set your own terms of service and say all the shitty things you can’t wait to say to make you feel better about yourself.

[Jon_Targaryen]

Get all the games you purchased again when a softmod comes around. Boom, nothing lost.

[raWfodog]

However, these types of bans (where you lose access to your paid items) aren't limited to gaming.

I posted this example to one of the other commentator's on this blog:

Playing devils advocate for a second, but how is this different from people losing access to their paid tickets when they get banned from sports arenas for racist/rowdy behavior?

I'm sure that some may allow for refunds but, in many cases, fans typically lose any money they spent on season/future tickets.

https://www.foxsports.com/m...

"Different states, leagues and teams have varying policies, but typically speaking, a violator facing a stadium ban is forced to sign paperwork before leaving the building agreeing to their own prohibition. In addition, any future tickets purchased by that fan are voided, and should that person return while the ban is still in place, he or she would be subject to arrest for criminal trespass."

It's kind of an illusion that items you paid for are yours to do with as you please. We see many forms of asset seizure in our society where people lose access to their property in one way or another. This is just another example. Not saying it's right or wrong but just be aware.

[Atanasrikard]

A stadium is no different then a restaurant in that it is a private facility owned and operated by an individual. The person that owns the property gets to set the rules as it is their property so if you are doing something that they deem unacceptable they are within their right to kick you out.

I guess the same could be said about the ToS with online gaming though I think it is much more complex than that.

[2pacalypsenow]

Totally agree with you.

[Nikijih]

So many things wrong in the comments....

1) We know we all signed a TOS and that Sony has the legal right to do what they did, what we are questioning is not the legality of the act but the morality of it. We are not asking ''is it legal?'', we are asking ''is it ethical?''.
2) No, the OP did not excuse or attempt to justify this guy's blatantly abusive behavior. He is not saying the gamer in question shouldn't be punished. He is questioning the nature of that punishment.
3) Hate Speech is a ridiculous notion. Insults are insults, and they all come from the same place. The idea of creating a separate category for some hateful comments and not others is rooted in selective discrimination to begin with. Bad behavior is bad behavior and should be treated the same no matter who the perpetrator is.

[2pacalypsenow]

Too many people thinking with their heart and not their brain.

[MadLad]

Well spoken.

[Bladesfist]

Actually, I think it is fine to question the legality of this as it's a pretty complicated subject.

A ToS has to meet a number of criteria to be legally binding and that will depend on where you are located. They tend to include a lot of stuff that exists in a grey area and it's never clear whether or not these clauses would stand up in court.

In the EU for example If purchased digital content suddenly stops working you have the right to ask for a remedy and if one is not provided you can terminate your contract and request a refund.

Not saying it's the case with this. I'm certainly not a lawyer but it's often financially advantageous for big companies to break the law and settle a bunch of lawsuits than actually abide by it.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/b...

[DaGR8JIBRALTAR]

Don't use racial and/or derogatory slurs online...it isn't rocket science. Use em out in the open so your ass can get knocked out.

[Limbrick]

This is not about what the banned person did. This is about Sony's TOS and the parts of that were enforced.
In this case i agree only with the online ban. Access to the library should not be denied as it should be seperate.
What looks like the unauthorized seizure of property is overruled by the terms of a TOS ????

[Failcube]

Terms of Service was agreed upon by user making these purchases. If they breach, Sony can do these sorts of things.

[frostypants]

Answer is simple: Terms of Service.

[Giblet_Head]

Times like this I'm glad Steam doesn't give a damn what I or anyone else says.

[elesthor]

Good piece. Mute the idiot, ban him from online play even, but don't restrict him from accessing paid games.

[jeki]

Why is he talking about weaponizing hate speech and how it's vague? We all saw what the racist who was banned said.

The question is whether or not his library should be unplayable but the writer made everything blurry by talking about how he was the victim of racism and how what you say today may be considerd hate speech tomorrow.

The 'slippery slope' argument is never convincing.

[SoulWarrior]

The guy is a racist scumbag and openly admits and brags about it afterwards, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. It's a temporary ban and it sounds he got off lightly to me, all this outrage over it just sounds like a bunch of 'but muh rights' thing.

[Automatic79]

Excellent and well put together article. Effective and to the point. I don't condone racism. In my opinion, a warning in this case is important, followed by a ban. But not losing your games.

[Killa78]

Because racists deserve it

[rainslacker]

" Listen, no company, not Sony, Microsoft nor Nintendo should have the right to stop someone from accessing what they paid hard earned money for over something like hate speech. "

Actually, they do have that right.

What happened to gamers, you ask? The gamers, at least the ones in question here, signed that right over to Sony when they signed up for PSN. They sign that right away over every time they make a purchase.

That right is completely in the control of the company in question, because gamers give them that right.

Sony, and these other companies are maintaining a public community. One where everyone is there to socialize and have fun. People want to feel safe, and these companies have a responsibility to make sure that ALL THEIR CUSTOMERS are not abused by singular jack-asses. That one person they ban isn't as important as the many that they abuse.

We live in a world where actions have consequences. What other action could Sony take? Can they send him to his room? Come over and paddle his bottom?

Well, They could have sent his information to law enforcement, because hate speech is actually illegal. They could have sent the info to his ISP, which may have shut down his service for abuse. Or, they can restrict his access to his games for a month. It's about akin to grounding, and hopefully he'll learn his lesson and not do it again. If he does, hopefully it'll be a permaban, and I'll support it in cases like this, and not be made to feel guilty by someone who thinks that people should just be able to do whatever they want without consequences.

[Scar-]

Its like debating with little children, READ THE TOS. I read them for my ps3 it took a hour but I read all of it they have been able to do this since last gen. You want to own your content STAY OFF the internet that simple. My best friend got his 360 bricked for modding it guess what Microsoft has a TOS also you can't get online and do and say whatever there are rules GROW UP and follow them.

[SlagWolf]

Except hate speech doesn’t exist
Already ruled to be complete bullshit by the Supreme Court

[mixelon]

Oh no not a temporary ban! 😦

Jeez. This seems completely fair and reasonable.

I’ve never said anything even remotely bannable. The idea that people are complaining that they might have to *think* before they *say* things? Holy crap. That explains a lot! I just assumed everyone did that!

Good for Sony. It’s in their TOS, he agreed to it. He sucks. He gets his toys taken away until he can behave like a responsible member of the community. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Also, this isn’t a slippery slope situation at all, he was clearly way out of line, and your made up “but what if they used these ban powers in X situation!” Is FUD. “There are places now where you can be arrested for telling a man wearing a wig he’s a man.” Hyperbole. Not true. Name one of those places. https://www.mcgilldaily.com... Before you say Canada. Your oversimplification of misgendering is pretty telling here.

This seems like people who are against “political correctness gone mad” (previously known as common decency) are worried that the companies they patronise could turn on them. Can’t say I’d mind if they did. There is a really simple solution that results in nobody getting banned...

.. Just.. Don’t be a dick?

Hate speech rules will never be a threat to anyone even remotely sensible.

.. And why do people here keep acting like US law is the only factor in deciding if something is right/wrong/legal? It’s a global network. Hate speech is recognised and protected against and spreading White supremecist BS is fully illegal in various territories.

[jznrpg]

Moral of the story is don’t buy digital and be a dumbass pos

[Mindphyx77822]

Did you people read the same article i did? 2nd paragraph "lost access to his games for making EXTREMELY RACIST COMMENTS" this goes beyond hate speech, this goes into RACIST SPEECH 2 VERY different things. The writer of said article then changes it from "extremely racist" to hate speech. So which is it? I bet the user was a 12 teen yelling N this N that i n which case as I stated below he should loose his games and be banned off psn or xlive fot life. Why is this even a debate wanna keep your games DON'T BE A RACIST IDIOT SIMPLE IS THAT TOO HARD FOR YOU PPL TO DO. And whoever defends this should be ashamed. BTW I'm white and have been called n this and that so many times I refuse to play online with randoms.

[Mindphyx77822]

BTW if your not racist and play Res evil rev 2 raid with a mic add me mindphyx77822

[antarius]

Good article! Too many beta’s offended by everything. Play it safe and don’t use a mic.

[AllMightyFox]

You all know you're wrong for everything you've said about this subject …..

1) FREEDOM OF SPEECH …. lot of people don't like …

People want to label speech as HATE, RASICT, BIGOTED, etc. and then ban the speech or the speaker

So everyone of you social warrior rejects enjoy violating the rights of others to say what they want plain and simple.

If you don't like FREE speech yourself, then you should be the first to SHUT UP !!!

[Mindphyx77822]

I agree with freedom of speech 100%. BUT READ Sony's terms of service for PSN!!! It clearly says NO racist/hate speech. Don't like games being taken away? Don't breach terms of service SIMPLE.

[Hungryalpaca]

All these people would have died in the Halo 2 days. Is it really that hard to mute people now?

There used to be a function where the more you got muted, then you’d be muted by default.

As for what he did, spewing abuse online is definitely a bannable offence IMO. However, what one says online should NOT affect their ability to play games offline.

Terms of service or not, it shouldn’t be in the terms of service. I guarantee I’d be able to dig up any horrendous shit from any of these people seriously thinking this is a good idea.

Losing access is all fine and dandy until it happens to you. Then you’ll have a problem with it.

The communities in the game should be doing the policing.

Is someone is being verbally abusive, mute them. The more they get muted, we’ll then they lose communication privileges.

A buddy of mine got a 3 day suspension for banter with friends in an online game. Once he got his access back he refuses to play games outside of a party. This is an issue. The policing is getting out of control.

For those of you who think hate speech is dangerous, banning speech is more dangerous. It pushes these people underground. They become little cliques that grow and grow into dangerous fanatical groups. It’s happened time and time again. The only way to combat bad speech is with good speech.

The fact people want to completely remove people from society for making mouth noises is worrying.

[Realms]

Did he really need to write an entire article about why this fool got banned? FYI Sony, Nintendo and MS can all ban your ass if you break their user agreement. People need to read it just in case they don't understand that it is a binding contract. If anything this highlights why going all digital is a horrible idea that gives these companies way too much power and control over your purchases.

[Brugal]

While I respect your opinion your notion of the vagueness of hate speech is as vague as your description of the incident that lead to this punishment. Why don’t we start with what exactly did this gamer say and do, how many times was this person reported, does this person have a history of this behavior?

Also, have you read Sony’s Terms of Service? I haven’t, but if there’s a stipulation on there that deems that behavior punishable then me, you, and everyone that signed on to their terms of service are liable to be punished for said behavior. It’s simple.

[DarXyde]

You're entitled to your beliefs, however flawed they might be... however, if you're going to skip over the Terms of Service, you'd best be on good behavior.

If you're going to read the Terms of Service, make sure you understand them.

If you read and understand the Terms of Service and you perpetuate hate speech, you have no right to be surprised.

And if you neither read nor understood the Terms of Service and you perpetuate hate speech, you're a trooper for giving the rest of us a laugh at your expense.

My point is that if you're in an online community and you do things to get banned, you can't be surprised when you lose access to your games. You bought those games using your online account, so if your account is banned, logically, things acquired by that account are very likely to have restricted access.

I have no sympathy for this.

[HaVoK308]

Couldn’t have been said any better than that JohnDoe11211. It’s terrifying that some gamers actually support this insane tyranny.

[Mindphyx77822]

Mindphyx77822 add me psn

[Mindphyx77822]

If you play Res evil rev 2 raid

[Exvalos]

And moral of the story dont buy digital.

[otakuapologist]

Hate speech rules were originally invented in the Soviet Union. All criticism of the communist party was made unlawful. The regime killed tens of millions of people in labor camps, manufactured starvation, prisons, and other means.

First they burn the books, then they burn the people.

[rob-GP]

Three words, Terms of Service. If you don’t read the terms before you agree to it then you’re buggered. The terms of all platforms is that if you break any of the rules, and are found guilty, then you lose access to your account - thus any games you’ve bought on that account. The guy would have had access to offline versions of the games he had downloaded, unless if he was sharing his account with others and it wasn’t set as a primary account.

Even physical games, get your account perm banned and you’ll lose access to your saves, thus making you start everything again.

This won’t have been the guys first offence and the punishment fits the crime - he broke the terms, they have the right to revoke his account. If he doesn’t agree with that then don’t click accept when making an account and then moan when he disregarded the rules that are in place along with their consequences.

[froy402]

Just ban him from online play he can play his games alone and say racial shit all he wants ALONE.