🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/17/2016 12:48 PM, Mr Rob wrote:
>
> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>
Free speech is dead.


-- 
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Fall 2016 survey began Sep 01; still accepting responses for Summer 2016

Mr Rob schrieb:
>
> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>
>
> Many of us live an Outrage Culture, largely nurtured and fueled by the
> relative anonymity that the Internet affords.
>
> Digital Homicide, the makers of PC games of decidedly dubious quality,
> such as The Slaughtering Grounds, have filed a lawsuit against 100
> Steam users for posting negative reviews about their products.
>
> The same company is already involved in a lawsuit with Youtube
> celebrity and game journalist Jim Sterling. They are claiming
> $15,000,000 for loss of earnings and damage to their reputation which
> they claim is the result of the tone and content of Jim's reviews
> which he posted to his well supported Youtube channel.
>
> Apparently  a judge has already granted a subpoena for early discovery
> of the identity of the reviewers.
>
> Valve has responded by dropping all Digital Homicide products from its
> catalogue for "being hostile to Steam customers."
>
> Read about it here on Bluesnews
>
> https://www.bluesnews.com/s/174799/digital-homicide-sues-steam-users-gets-dropped-by-valve

Because this is an important topic, some links for those who prefers german:

<http://www.gamersglobal.de/news/120417/steam-valve-wirft-indie-entwickler-digital-homicide-nach-klage-gegen-die-spieler-raus>

<http://www.playm.de/2016/09/steam-valve-schmeisst-indie-entwickler-digital-homicide-raus-310325/>

<http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Steam-Software-69900/News/100-Nutzer-von-Entwickler-Digital-Homicide-verklagt-1208070/>

Thanks Rob, for this interesting news.
-- 
Ciao, Ned.

On 9/17/2016 4:25 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 9/17/2016 12:48 PM, Mr Rob wrote:
>>
>> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>>
> Free speech is dead.
>
>
It is because there was no "safe space" provided or the "trigger" wasn't 
working that day.

You're right about free speech, tho'.

D.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 13:25:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 9/17/2016 12:48 PM, Mr Rob wrote:
>>
>> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>>
>Free speech is dead.

To be fair, the case isn't quite as open-n-shut as it first appears,
and neither side of the case is anyone I'd root for.

Apparently the developers are in some sort of feud with a you-tube
personality and fans of said personality have taken it upon themselves
to besmirch the company at every opportunity, descending en masse on
any game or video they release, leaving crude comments and reviews.
The suit is less about "bad reviews" and more about this belligerent
behavior and possibly libelous remarks made by this group. It'd
actually be almost justified, except apparently the developers are
dicks themselves. It doesnt' excuse any illegal behavior, but it does
permit some schadenfreud amonst the case's observers.

Frankly, I think Steam did right in distancing itself from the whole
mess.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 07:42:38 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 13:25:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 9/17/2016 12:48 PM, Mr Rob wrote:
>>>
>>> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>>>
>>Free speech is dead.
>
>To be fair, the case isn't quite as open-n-shut as it first appears,
>and neither side of the case is anyone I'd root for.
>
>Apparently the developers are in some sort of feud with a you-tube
>personality and fans of said personality have taken it upon themselves
>to besmirch the company at every opportunity, descending en masse on
>any game or video they release, leaving crude comments and reviews.
>The suit is less about "bad reviews" and more about this belligerent
>behavior and possibly libelous remarks made by this group. It'd
>actually be almost justified, except apparently the developers are
>dicks themselves. It doesnt' excuse any illegal behavior, but it does
>permit some schadenfreud amonst the case's observers.
>
>Frankly, I think Steam did right in distancing itself from the whole
>mess.


That's pretty much my stance on this as well.

Even free speech should have its boundaries. You're free to say
whatever you want, but there has to be at least a modicum of restraint
when it comes to how you say it when doing it in public.

You can get the same message across without being borderline
slanderous in presenting what should be your objective opinion about a
product.

In Jim Sterling's case, he likes to use his vulgarities liberally and
I'm pretty sure that he sees himself as just being 'down to earth'.

Some of his points are put across by sailing pretty close to the wind
in terms of being objective versus being subjective.

-- 
Rob

Mr Rob <noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>
>Many of us live an Outrage Culture, largely nurtured and fueled by the
>relative anonymity that the Internet affords.
>
>Digital Homicide, the makers of PC games of decidedly dubious quality,
>such as The Slaughtering Grounds, have filed a lawsuit against 100
>Steam users for posting negative reviews about their products.
>
>The same company is already involved in a lawsuit with Youtube
>celebrity and game journalist Jim Sterling. They are claiming
>$15,000,000 for loss of earnings and damage to their reputation which
>they claim is the result of the tone and content of Jim's reviews
>which he posted to his well supported Youtube channel.
>
>Apparently  a judge has already granted a subpoena for early discovery
>of the identity of the reviewers.
>
>Valve has responded by dropping all Digital Homicide products from its
>catalogue for "being hostile to Steam customers." 
>
>Read about it here on Bluesnews  
>
>https://www.bluesnews.com/s/174799/digital-homicide-sues-steam-users-gets-dropped-by-valve

Digital Homicide just committed Digital Suicide.

Seriously, even if by some miracle they actually won, what gamer would
ever buy anything they made after this, what distributor would do
business with them?

"Hey, buy our game, if you don't like it don't say anything or we'll sue
you!"

Way to raise their profile as providers of garbage.

Would be nice if the justice system curb-stomped these shovelware
purveyors and awarded costs and penalties to the people they're suing.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:48:35 +0100, Mr Rob
<noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>
>The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>
>
>Many of us live an Outrage Culture, largely nurtured and fueled by the
>relative anonymity that the Internet affords.
>
>Digital Homicide, the makers of PC games of decidedly dubious quality,
>such as The Slaughtering Grounds, have filed a lawsuit against 100
>Steam users for posting negative reviews about their products.
>
>The same company is already involved in a lawsuit with Youtube
>celebrity and game journalist Jim Sterling. They are claiming
>$15,000,000 for loss of earnings and damage to their reputation which
>they claim is the result of the tone and content of Jim's reviews
>which he posted to his well supported Youtube channel.
>
>Apparently  a judge has already granted a subpoena for early discovery
>of the identity of the reviewers.
>
>Valve has responded by dropping all Digital Homicide products from its
>catalogue for "being hostile to Steam customers." 
>
>Read about it here on Bluesnews  
>
>https://www.bluesnews.com/s/174799/digital-homicide-sues-steam-users-gets-dropped-by-valve


One of the issues that will have to be addressed, sooner or later, is
that if negative reviews / ratings / rage rants are candidates for
legal scrutiny, then there must also be equal legal penalty for
shilling and sponsored positivity, and therein lies a problem:

With legal penalty for hired shills, the entire internet advertising
industry would get rocked to the core pretty much overnight.  I know
"truth in speech" rather than "free speech" sounds like a good thing
on the surface, but it does have consequences and if those
consequences emerge too quickly, it can have dire economic impacts.  A
"truth in speech" movement (assuming that could ever be successful?)
would rock many companies and individual livelihoods to the core, and
change things like Youtube as we have come to know them.

Without equal legal penalty for shills / non-legit positive reviews,
we can't reasonably justify penalizing people who make a living via
negative raging (or even those who just have an agenda), it would be
an indefensible double standard.

I think there's too much money flowing into the Internet
advertising/marketing industry to expect any real change here, we are
talking direct impact to companies like Google that have deep pockets
and legal resources, and for that reason I think ranter's freedom will
prevail.  

Besides, both types of non-legit reviewers (shills and rage
specialists) have a big advantage:  staying relatively anonymous and
under the radar, on a large scale rather than an individual one, is
easier and cheaper than the legal resources required to track them
down, so they'll always be one step ahead.

In other words Digital Homicide is fucked.  Sorry, make decent games
and this won't happen.

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Free speech is dead.

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>To be fair, the case isn't quite as open-n-shut as it first appears,
>and neither side of the case is anyone I'd root for.

Oh, it's pretty much open-and-shut.  The right to free speech is as
close to an absolute right as there is in the US.  The company would
have a huge uphill battle to prove that the behaviour, as bad as it was,
isn't protected speech.  Meanwhile they would be opening themselves
up to a "scorched earth" defence, where it would be argued that the
company's own actions had damaged their reputation so much that it was
worthless already.  The defence would also naturally argue that not only
is every nasty thing said about them a protected opinion, but is also
substantially true.

But it doesn't seem likely that this is going to go to trial.  Having
their games removed from Steam means that the company's revenues have
just dropped in the toilet.  At this point their lawyers should be
wondering how they're going to get paid.  Unless the company is owned by
some rich billionaire, both the lawsuit and Digital Homicide are pretty
much over now.

Tactically this the ranks up their with the stupidest lawsuits in history.
Even if it wasn't obviously suicidal, they should've known Valve wouldn't
be happy about being served with a subpoena, they had little chance of
winning.  Even if it did go to court, their reputation, such as it is,
would have been completely trashed.  Even if they did manage to win,
they'd have little chance of getting an enforcable judgement.  I doubt
many of the 100 people named as defendents have much money, and most
probably don't live in the US.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On 9/18/2016 5:51 AM, Mr Rob wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 07:42:38 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 13:25:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/17/2016 12:48 PM, Mr Rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>>>>
>>> Free speech is dead.
>>
>> To be fair, the case isn't quite as open-n-shut as it first appears,
>> and neither side of the case is anyone I'd root for.
>>
>> Apparently the developers are in some sort of feud with a you-tube
>> personality and fans of said personality have taken it upon themselves
>> to besmirch the company at every opportunity, descending en masse on
>> any game or video they release, leaving crude comments and reviews.
>> The suit is less about "bad reviews" and more about this belligerent
>> behavior and possibly libelous remarks made by this group. It'd
>> actually be almost justified, except apparently the developers are
>> dicks themselves. It doesnt' excuse any illegal behavior, but it does
>> permit some schadenfreud amonst the case's observers.
>>
>> Frankly, I think Steam did right in distancing itself from the whole
>> mess.
>
>
> That's pretty much my stance on this as well.
>
> Even free speech should have its boundaries. You're free to say
> whatever you want, but there has to be at least a modicum of restraint
> when it comes to how you say it when doing it in public.
>
> You can get the same message across without being borderline
> slanderous in presenting what should be your objective opinion about a
> product.
>
> In Jim Sterling's case, he likes to use his vulgarities liberally and
> I'm pretty sure that he sees himself as just being 'down to earth'.
>
> Some of his points are put across by sailing pretty close to the wind
> in terms of being objective versus being subjective.
>
Re; "Even free speech should have its boundaries." I have to disagree. 
That is the first step to eliminating free speech entirely.  Its not 
free speech if the listener has to agree with or like what is being 
said.  The listener has the option of walking away (or turning the 
electronic device off, etc.) or, most importantly, telling the first 
party what _they_ think.  And yes, it does sometimes require strong 
language to get the message across.  The whole point of Free Speech is 
to PROTECT minority and unpopular opinions.

Also, I don't think there is such a thing as an objective review.  All 
reviews are opinions which are by definition subjective.  :)

-- 
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Fall 2016 survey began Sep 01; still accepting responses for Summer 2016

On 9/18/2016 8:19 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:48:35 +0100, Mr Rob
> <noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>>
>>
>> Many of us live an Outrage Culture, largely nurtured and fueled by the
>> relative anonymity that the Internet affords.
>>
>> Digital Homicide, the makers of PC games of decidedly dubious quality,
>> such as The Slaughtering Grounds, have filed a lawsuit against 100
>> Steam users for posting negative reviews about their products.
>>
>> The same company is already involved in a lawsuit with Youtube
>> celebrity and game journalist Jim Sterling. They are claiming
>> $15,000,000 for loss of earnings and damage to their reputation which
>> they claim is the result of the tone and content of Jim's reviews
>> which he posted to his well supported Youtube channel.
>>
>> Apparently  a judge has already granted a subpoena for early discovery
>> of the identity of the reviewers.
>>
>> Valve has responded by dropping all Digital Homicide products from its
>> catalogue for "being hostile to Steam customers."
>>
>> Read about it here on Bluesnews
>>
>> https://www.bluesnews.com/s/174799/digital-homicide-sues-steam-users-gets-dropped-by-valve
>
>
> One of the issues that will have to be addressed, sooner or later, is
> that if negative reviews / ratings / rage rants are candidates for
> legal scrutiny, then there must also be equal legal penalty for
> shilling and sponsored positivity, and therein lies a problem:
>
> With legal penalty for hired shills, the entire internet advertising
> industry would get rocked to the core pretty much overnight.  I know
> "truth in speech" rather than "free speech" sounds like a good thing
> on the surface, but it does have consequences and if those
> consequences emerge too quickly, it can have dire economic impacts.  A
> "truth in speech" movement (assuming that could ever be successful?)
> would rock many companies and individual livelihoods to the core, and
> change things like Youtube as we have come to know them.
>
> Without equal legal penalty for shills / non-legit positive reviews,
> we can't reasonably justify penalizing people who make a living via
> negative raging (or even those who just have an agenda), it would be
> an indefensible double standard.
>
> I think there's too much money flowing into the Internet
> advertising/marketing industry to expect any real change here, we are
> talking direct impact to companies like Google that have deep pockets
> and legal resources, and for that reason I think ranter's freedom will
> prevail.
>
> Besides, both types of non-legit reviewers (shills and rage
> specialists) have a big advantage:  staying relatively anonymous and
> under the radar, on a large scale rather than an individual one, is
> easier and cheaper than the legal resources required to track them
> down, so they'll always be one step ahead.
>
> In other words Digital Homicide is fucked.  Sorry, make decent games
> and this won't happen.
>
Digital Homicide's lawyers are adding your name to their list as I type.  :D


-- 
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Fall 2016 survey began Sep 01; still accepting responses for Summer 2016

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:58:43 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 9/18/2016 8:19 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:48:35 +0100, Mr Rob
>> <noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The world has gone crazy...or was it already at the point of insanity?
>>>
>>>
>>> Many of us live an Outrage Culture, largely nurtured and fueled by the
>>> relative anonymity that the Internet affords.
>>>
>>> Digital Homicide, the makers of PC games of decidedly dubious quality,
>>> such as The Slaughtering Grounds, have filed a lawsuit against 100
>>> Steam users for posting negative reviews about their products.
>>>
>>> The same company is already involved in a lawsuit with Youtube
>>> celebrity and game journalist Jim Sterling. They are claiming
>>> $15,000,000 for loss of earnings and damage to their reputation which
>>> they claim is the result of the tone and content of Jim's reviews
>>> which he posted to his well supported Youtube channel.
>>>
>>> Apparently  a judge has already granted a subpoena for early discovery
>>> of the identity of the reviewers.
>>>
>>> Valve has responded by dropping all Digital Homicide products from its
>>> catalogue for "being hostile to Steam customers."
>>>
>>> Read about it here on Bluesnews
>>>
>>> https://www.bluesnews.com/s/174799/digital-homicide-sues-steam-users-gets-dropped-by-valve
>>
>>
>> One of the issues that will have to be addressed, sooner or later, is
>> that if negative reviews / ratings / rage rants are candidates for
>> legal scrutiny, then there must also be equal legal penalty for
>> shilling and sponsored positivity, and therein lies a problem:
>>
>> With legal penalty for hired shills, the entire internet advertising
>> industry would get rocked to the core pretty much overnight.  I know
>> "truth in speech" rather than "free speech" sounds like a good thing
>> on the surface, but it does have consequences and if those
>> consequences emerge too quickly, it can have dire economic impacts.  A
>> "truth in speech" movement (assuming that could ever be successful?)
>> would rock many companies and individual livelihoods to the core, and
>> change things like Youtube as we have come to know them.
>>
>> Without equal legal penalty for shills / non-legit positive reviews,
>> we can't reasonably justify penalizing people who make a living via
>> negative raging (or even those who just have an agenda), it would be
>> an indefensible double standard.
>>
>> I think there's too much money flowing into the Internet
>> advertising/marketing industry to expect any real change here, we are
>> talking direct impact to companies like Google that have deep pockets
>> and legal resources, and for that reason I think ranter's freedom will
>> prevail.
>>
>> Besides, both types of non-legit reviewers (shills and rage
>> specialists) have a big advantage:  staying relatively anonymous and
>> under the radar, on a large scale rather than an individual one, is
>> easier and cheaper than the legal resources required to track them
>> down, so they'll always be one step ahead.
>>
>> In other words Digital Homicide is fucked.  Sorry, make decent games
>> and this won't happen.
>>
>Digital Homicide's lawyers are adding your name to their list as I type.  :D

See, this has all been thought out in advance.  I figure they'll come
knocking on Mack's door first, so I equipped him with an alert system
that sends me a text in the event.  Then I go on a multi-continental
vacation for a few months off the grid, avoiding subpoenas.  Done and
done ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EqLSBAddSU

Mr Rob <noemail...@jsjsaiiowppw.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
>In Jim Sterling's case, he likes to use his vulgarities liberally and
>I'm pretty sure that he sees himself as just being 'down to earth'.
>
>Some of his points are put across by sailing pretty close to the wind
>in terms of being objective versus being subjective.

Isn't the whole point of "commentators" that they are giving their
opinion of the game/movie/restaurant/whatever?

Sure there are objective bits, but the reason people get followed,
whether in a paper, on TV or on Youtube, is the spin they put on it
and/or that they have similar tastes to you.

IE if Siskel and Ebert liked a movie, chances are I will too, if they
both hated it, chances are I will too and I can save my cash.   If only
one did, well then it comes down to why they liked or disliked it.

Ditto radio station DJs, talk show hosts and so on.

Having, during my time playing Star Trek Online, looked for videos
showing what the various shield graphics looked like on a ship I was
thinking of getting I ended up watching some videos by
"reviewers/presenters" who could bore paint off a wall.

Think the annoying stapler guy from Office Space, with an even more
whiny, annoying voice and less personality giving an hour plus long
presentation about something that could have been covered in 5 minutes.

Youtube is full of people who are good reviewers of things in the same
way the Geocities was full of well designed websites.


As for Digital Homicide, they have just outdone John Romero's "gonna
make you his bitch" for the biggest foot shoot in gaming history.

Even if Jim Sterling did say bad things about them, how many steam users
ever saw or heard of them?   I'd never heard of them, but then I don't
buy craptastic games and that's all they make.

I've heard of them now, and I will certainly make sure never to buy any
product they're associated with in any way.

I doubt I'm alone in that, and I doubt very much if they will ever sell
another game after this with the notoriety they just gave themselves.

Hell they just made Derek Smart look reasonable.


Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>Free speech is dead.
>
>Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>To be fair, the case isn't quite as open-n-shut as it first appears,
>>and neither side of the case is anyone I'd root for.
>
>Oh, it's pretty much open-and-shut.  The right to free speech is as
>close to an absolute right as there is in the US.  The company would
>have a huge uphill battle to prove that the behaviour, as bad as it was,
>isn't protected speech.  Meanwhile they would be opening themselves
>up to a "scorched earth" defence, where it would be argued that the
>company's own actions had damaged their reputation so much that it was
>worthless already.  The defence would also naturally argue that not only
>is every nasty thing said about them a protected opinion, but is also
>substantially true.

The case against Jim Sterling as far as I've seen is that he claimed
they used art from deviantart without license, that they had stolen it,
when in fact the artist in question sells his art for use on
shutterstock and it was used legitimately.

Sterling apologized and corrected himself, but apparently in Arizona you
can sue for that kind of "defamation" even if a retract is made, and
they filed the suit in Arizona

They have a bit of a case, but saying that his comment and not their
crap products and general behavior is the cause of lost business, that's
going to be extremely hard to prove.

>But it doesn't seem likely that this is going to go to trial.  Having
>their games removed from Steam means that the company's revenues have
>just dropped in the toilet.  At this point their lawyers should be
>wondering how they're going to get paid.  Unless the company is owned by
>some rich billionaire, both the lawsuit and Digital Homicide are pretty
>much over now.

From
https://www.destructoid.com/there-isn-t-enough-popcorn-in-the-world-for-this-digital-homicide-case-387669.phtml

James Oliver Romine Jr. is acting as his own attorney in the case. He
had previously sought financial help in a Go Fund Me campaign for his
defamation lawsuit against Sterling.


Unreal, he's asking the public, gamers, to help him sue gamers.
Yeah, that's going to happen.

>Tactically this the ranks up their with the stupidest lawsuits in history.
>Even if it wasn't obviously suicidal, they should've known Valve wouldn't
>be happy about being served with a subpoena, they had little chance of
>winning.  Even if it did go to court, their reputation, such as it is,
>would have been completely trashed.  Even if they did manage to win,
>they'd have little chance of getting an enforcable judgement.  I doubt
>many of the 100 people named as defendents have much money, and most
>probably don't live in the US.

Agreed, any victory they get will be Pyrrhic.

The publicity they've made for themselves in the gaming community will
almost guarantee they won't ever sell another game.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 09:56:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:



>Re; "Even free speech should have its boundaries." I have to disagree. 
>That is the first step to eliminating free speech entirely.  Its not 
>free speech if the listener has to agree with or like what is being 
>said.  The listener has the option of walking away (or turning the 
>electronic device off, etc.) or, most importantly, telling the first 
>party what _they_ think.  And yes, it does sometimes require strong 
>language to get the message across.  The whole point of Free Speech is 
>to PROTECT minority and unpopular opinions.

I'm not sure that it can be seen in such a black and white way.

Had Jim Sterling used racist and/or homophobic material in his reviews
he would undoubtedly have had far more opposition to his videos, which
would have been removed from Youtube and probably every other website
as well.

That's mainly  what I mean by boundaries. To expand a little further,
yes you can say what you like, but you can't always say things how you
like. You don't need to be offensive or derogatory in the name of free
speech.

I'm a big believer in freedom and free speech. I have no problem with
those kind of boundaries and in no way feel that such boundaries would
impose on my freedom and rights.

To me, it's about common sense and common decency, both of which are
major parts of free thinking, free speech, and a free society.


-- 
Rob

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:54:13 +0000 (UTC), rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>Free speech is dead.
>
>Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>To be fair, the case isn't quite as open-n-shut as it first appears,
>>and neither side of the case is anyone I'd root for.

>Oh, it's pretty much open-and-shut.  The right to free speech is as
>close to an absolute right as there is in the US. 

It's also only a guarantee that /the government/ will not curtail your
speech. This is an argument between individuals; I can tell you to
shut-the-fuck-up and wouldn't be violating your constitutional rights
in the slightest.


> The company would
>have a huge uphill battle to prove that the behaviour, as bad as it was,
>isn't protected speech.  Meanwhile they would be opening themselves
>up to a "scorched earth" defence, where it would be argued that the
>company's own actions had damaged their reputation so much that it was
>worthless already.  The defence would also naturally argue that not only
>is every nasty thing said about them a protected opinion, but is also
>substantially true.

I haven't looked into the details of this case, and much of what I
have heard is hearsay, so take the following with a grain of salt. 

However, the issue is apparently not as simple as an opinionated
review. This has been tested in court and it repeatedly has been ruled
that you cannot force individuals to take down negative comments.
However, this case also includes libelous comments - I believe one
specific claim was that the reviewers were saying that the developers
were using stolen assets in their games. And while it may not be an
issue to the Steam reviews, supposedly the commenters would often
flood other forums with negative reviews of games they never even
played, solely with the intent of harming the developer's business. 

The developer themselves have a bad reputation themselves so as I
said, it seems a bit of well-deserved schadenfreud but at the same
time the accused do not appear to be any more sympathetic. They are
free to say what they want, but that freedom is not an assurance of
freedom from consequences.
>
>But it doesn't seem likely that this is going to go to trial.  Having
>their games removed from Steam means that the company's revenues have
>just dropped in the toilet.  At this point their lawyers should be
>wondering how they're going to get paid.  Unless the company is owned by
>some rich billionaire, both the lawsuit and Digital Homicide are pretty
>much over now.

Neither group seems particularly mature or intelligent. I've no desire
to see the developers win from this one, but neither am I happy the
accused are getting away scott-free.

>Tactically this the ranks up their with the stupidest lawsuits in history.
>Even if it wasn't obviously suicidal, they should've known Valve wouldn't
>be happy about being served with a subpoena, they had little chance of
>winning.  Even if it did go to court, their reputation, such as it is,
>would have been completely trashed.  

I am not so sanguine about the developer's chances of defeat; if there
were truly libelous comments made by the accused, that's a pretty
open-n-shut case (proving the "cyber-bullying" aspect, where the group
engaged in petty trolling to purposely damage the company's
reputation, would be a harder battle). 

>Even if they did manage to win,
>they'd have little chance of getting an enforcable judgement.  I doubt
>many of the 100 people named as defendents have much money, and most
>probably don't live in the US.

rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge) wrote:
>Oh, it's pretty much open-and-shut.  The right to free speech is as
>close to an absolute right as there is in the US. 

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's also only a guarantee that /the government/ will not curtail your
>speech. This is an argument between individuals; I can tell you to
>shut-the-fuck-up and wouldn't be violating your constitutional rights
>in the slightest.

Yes, that's exactly what Robert Romine (co-founder of Digital Homicide,
and the one filing the lawsuit) is trying to do here. He's asking the
government, through the courts, to curtail the speech of the people he's
suing. You can tell me to shut up all you want, but if you personally
try to force me to shut up, or forcably try take something from me in
compenstation, you're going to jail.  The courts can order to me to shut
up or for me compensate you, but their ability to so is restricted by
the Constitution.

(Ironically one Romine's complaints in the lawsuit is that the defendents
have violated his "right to communicate with the world".  So apparently
he disagrees with you.)

>However, this case also includes libelous comments - I believe one
>specific claim was that the reviewers were saying that the developers
>were using stolen assets in their games.

This is a claim in the original lawsuit against Jim Sterling.  Apparently
Robert Romine is claiming that Jim Sterling said that Digital Homicide
"may" have lifted artwork from an artist on DeviantArt.  This is easily
defended.  It's an honest opinion, not a statement of fact.  Even it were
a statement of fact, it's not actually a crime, so the burden is on the
plaintif show actual defamation and harm.  Finally it's substaintially
true, the artwork isn't original to the game. The fact that Digital
Homicide obtained the artwork from the artist through Shutterstock,
doesn't change that.

(Then there's some fundamental technical problems with the lawsuit
that will probably get it dismissed without considering these issues,
like the fact that Romine himself was never identified in the review,
so he can't claim he himself was defamed.)

You can read more details about the original case in this Kotaku article:

	http://kotaku.com/angered-game-developer-sues-game-critic-jim-sterling-fo-1765484317

>I am not so sanguine about the developer's chances of defeat; if there
>were truly libelous comments made by the accused, that's a pretty
>open-n-shut case (proving the "cyber-bullying" aspect, where the group
>engaged in petty trolling to purposely damage the company's
>reputation, would be a harder battle). 

No, in the US even in the best of circumstances winning a defamation
(libel) case is an uphill battle.  This is true even when handled
by expert lawyers most, but as Xocyll pointed out, James Romine
is representing himself.  His claims are all over the place, a broad
scatter shot through both the law and the many people who he thinks have
abused him.  He argues that all 100 defendents have conspired to take away
his rights, are guilty of disorderly conduct, are stalking him, harrassing
him, tortiously interfering with his business, and libelled him.  Post an
insulting review of one his games and according to him you're guilty of
all of this.

He also has a shakey grasp of the law, making serveral criminal
complaints in a civil lawsuit and is making claims based on Arizona
state law in a federal lawsuit. He's even trying to claim damages from
his own filing of the lawsuit, for the time lost representing himself.
Indeed, a far more likely outcome is that he's going to have to pay the
attorney fees of the defendents.  US courts rarely award attorney fees
to the winners of cases, and never do to those who represent themselves,
but the exception is in frivolous and meritless cases like this one.

You can read more about the second lawsuit on Kotaku as well, they
include a link to a copy Romine's original complaint in the case:

	http://kotaku.com/game-developer-sues-100-anonymous-steam-users-for-18-m-1786721306

				Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //