3 ms·

I recommend reading up on the history of Free Speech in America. You'll find that all of these issues and more have already been thoroughly discussed in the las

I recommend reading up on the history of Free Speech in America. You'll find that all of these issues and more have already been thoroughly discussed in the last 400 years of liberal society. Political speech is protected, but your right to say you're going to go to someone's house and kill their whole family is generally not protected. It's pretty clear that Blizzard was not following their own guidebook here. I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". The banning was only because it was anti china. An anti-Spain statement would have just resulted in some scratching of heads, not a 1 year suspension and revoking of prize money.

baddox 7y ago
It's worth noting that while your description of free speech in the USA is somewhat accurate, the USA actually has extremely relaxed restrictions for speech advocating violence. The current federal standard is "imminent lawless action," which means that speech cannot be restricted unless the violence it's advocating is likely to happen immediately. As far as I can tell, you can freely broadcast speech of the form "let's get together sometime and do a bunch of violence against so-and-so." This comes from a Supreme Court case about a Ku Klux Klan rally where the leader addressed the group and literally advocated organized violence against minorities for political purposes (what many would call terrorism).
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  That's not the only exception. You can't make "true threats." There are laws against conspiracy to commit crimes, which you might have described ("let's get together sometime") in your example.
  - marcusverus 7y ago
    Conspiracy requires more than speech. Two accountants who agree over drinks that "the shareholders are assholes, we should defraud them!" are not commiting a crime until they take some action past speech alone. Based on a quick Google search of the legal elements of conspiracy crimes, you need an actual agreement/plan to commit a crime and some consummating act that shows intent to follow through. Point being, these aren't really speech restrictions.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Apparently not, see U.S. v. Shabini, so an overt act requirement isn't a consequence of the 1st Amendment rule; just many laws (but not all) happen to require one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> It's pretty clear that Blizzard was not following their own guidebook here. I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". The banning was only because it was anti china. An anti-Spain statement would have just resulted in some scratching of heads, not a 1 year suspension and revoking of prize money. As far as I've read (which is basically nothing but https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=48310 https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=48310 ), the response to blitzchung came from NetEase, Blizzard's legally-required publisher/distributor in China. Unlike Blizzard, NetEase is a Chinese company. It seems unsurprising that the Chinese distributor for Hearthstone would react like a Chinese company -- that's the point of the requirement. Was Blizzard even consulted on the response?
- sharkjacobs 7y ago
  I think you're misreading that article. There is no question that suspending Blitzchung and stripping him of his prize money was done by Blizzard, not NetEase. The Chinese social media statement was from NetEase, and Blizzard may or may not have had any say in that.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    The NetEase statement details what the punishment will be. (It is explicitly set in the future.) I'm quite willing to believe that NetEase made that statement only after discussing the punishment with Blizzard, or hearing an official public statement from Blizzard, or some such. But (and again, I am not informed on the topic) I'd also be willing to believe otherwise.
    - ggggtez 7y ago
      Blizzard presumably has control of their own checkbook. They didn't just ban him from playing in China. Some of the tournaments he participated in were in other countries, like Singapore. To suggest that China should be able to cause a US company to ban a player from playing in Singapore... it's silly. Does Blizzard run it's own company or is it run by the Chinese Government?
- deleted 7y ago
freeflight 7y ago
> I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". Because imagination overrides precedent?
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Sure, when did Blizzard ban a pro player for making a pro-Catalan statement? Or censor any references to the Spanish Inquisition, and other Spanish atrocities? Because they sure do that sort of thing for China... Imagination isn't required, you can just look at the world and see that China gets special treatment.

baddox 7y ago

It's worth noting that while your description of free speech in the USA is somewhat accurate, the USA actually has extremely relaxed restrictions for speech advocating violence. The current federal standard is "imminent lawless action," which means that speech cannot be restricted unless the violence it's advocating is likely to happen immediately. As far as I can tell, you can freely broadcast speech of the form "let's get together sometime and do a bunch of violence against so-and-so." This comes from a Supreme Court case about a Ku Klux Klan rally where the leader addressed the group and literally advocated organized violence against minorities for political purposes (what many would call terrorism).

SamReidHughes 7y ago
That's not the only exception. You can't make "true threats." There are laws against conspiracy to commit crimes, which you might have described ("let's get together sometime") in your example.
- marcusverus 7y ago
  Conspiracy requires more than speech. Two accountants who agree over drinks that "the shareholders are assholes, we should defraud them!" are not commiting a crime until they take some action past speech alone. Based on a quick Google search of the legal elements of conspiracy crimes, you need an actual agreement/plan to commit a crime and some consummating act that shows intent to follow through. Point being, these aren't really speech restrictions.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Apparently not, see U.S. v. Shabini, so an overt act requirement isn't a consequence of the 1st Amendment rule; just many laws (but not all) happen to require one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> It's pretty clear that Blizzard was not following their own guidebook here. I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". The banning was only because it was anti china. An anti-Spain statement would have just resulted in some scratching of heads, not a 1 year suspension and revoking of prize money. As far as I've read (which is basically nothing but https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=48310 https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=48310 ), the response to blitzchung came from NetEase, Blizzard's legally-required publisher/distributor in China. Unlike Blizzard, NetEase is a Chinese company. It seems unsurprising that the Chinese distributor for Hearthstone would react like a Chinese company -- that's the point of the requirement. Was Blizzard even consulted on the response?

sharkjacobs 7y ago
I think you're misreading that article. There is no question that suspending Blitzchung and stripping him of his prize money was done by Blizzard, not NetEase. The Chinese social media statement was from NetEase, and Blizzard may or may not have had any say in that.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  The NetEase statement details what the punishment will be. (It is explicitly set in the future.) I'm quite willing to believe that NetEase made that statement only after discussing the punishment with Blizzard, or hearing an official public statement from Blizzard, or some such. But (and again, I am not informed on the topic) I'd also be willing to believe otherwise.
  - ggggtez 7y ago
    Blizzard presumably has control of their own checkbook. They didn't just ban him from playing in China. Some of the tournaments he participated in were in other countries, like Singapore. To suggest that China should be able to cause a US company to ban a player from playing in Singapore... it's silly. Does Blizzard run it's own company or is it run by the Chinese Government?
deleted 7y ago

freeflight 7y ago

> I can't imagine them banning a player who said "Free Catalan!". Because imagination overrides precedent?

ggggtez 7y ago
Sure, when did Blizzard ban a pro player for making a pro-Catalan statement? Or censor any references to the Spanish Inquisition, and other Spanish atrocities? Because they sure do that sort of thing for China... Imagination isn't required, you can just look at the world and see that China gets special treatment.