Player sues Sony after being banned from PlayStation Network

by Andrew Yoon { Jul 21st 2009 at 3:00PM }

It's pretty difficult to get banned from the PlayStation Network. You have to be a total jerk-face to get booted off PS3's online community. However, that's what Erik Estavallo managed to do whilst playing Resistance. With access to the game cut off, Estavallo decided to take part in the most appropriate action possible: a lawsuit.

Estavallo argues that a ban from the PlayStation Network goes against his First Amendment rights. "The plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game's public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network," a court document retrieved by GamePolitics reveals. This, in turn, has caused "pain and suffering" because the PS3 is "the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia."

Estavallo is asking for $55,000 in punitive damages and demands Sony no longer implement bans of any sort. He alleges that "PlayStation 3 is the only system that incorporates this type of wide-ranged ban. As where Nintendo does not ban customers at all. And Microsoft Xbox rarely bans."

Tags: erik-estavillo, lawsuit, lol, playstation-network, psn, resistance

Related From Joystiq

Wise old Miss America says kids should go back to playing with sticks
7 days ago
Video Game Price Charts reveal biggest resale prices of 2009
10 days ago
Hellgate: London servers set to reopen in Europe and U.S.
22 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)

Temidien @ Jul 21st 2009 3:02PM

Pic is too perfect.

Shaun @ Jul 21st 2009 3:39PM

When will idiots realize that freedom of speech doesn't apply in these types of situations? If Sony didn't want us to say the word 'poodle' on PSN, they could ban us for that too. PSN is their property. Just like the FCC dictates what can be on American TV, Sony decides what is on PSN. Think about it. People are so dim.

Mojo Yugen @ Jul 21st 2009 3:48PM

Poodle Poodle Poodle!

jimmyn28 @ Jul 21st 2009 3:48PM

Well, as a journalism major, I can tell you, Shaun, that what it really boils down to is whether or not you would consider PSN to be a "public forum" (as he is arguing).

Vegnagun bwf @ Jul 21st 2009 3:51PM

Yeah, I don't really understand why people think the first amendment (or any amendment) has no exceptions. There are certain things you can say or not say while in a school--the school can expel you for saying racial epithets, the first amendment doesn't apply. You can't yell bomb on a plane--the first amendment doesn't apply. You can't yell fire in a movie theater--the first amendment doesn't apply. If Sony says you can't be a jackass on PSN then the first amendment doesn't apply.

I hope this asshole's case gets dropped.

Justin @ Jul 21st 2009 3:56PM

Sony can do whatever they want with their service as you agree to their rules when you first sign on. Same with MS and Nintendo.

The only real way around this would be if they started banning people based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.

asdfghjkloo @ Jul 21st 2009 3:57PM

Banned.

You said "jackass" and "asshole".

bkmulder @ Jul 21st 2009 4:09PM

@jimmyn28

I'm guessing you didn't get very good grades then. Whether it is a "public forum" is irrelevant so long as Sony is the one doing the banning. You still need state action for the First Amendment to apply.

Evan_ARRRR @ Jul 21st 2009 4:12PM

@Justin:

Except that an XBL user was recently banned for listing her sexual preference (lesbian) on her XBL user profile. In fact, I believe Joystiq covered the story.

Courtney @ Jul 21st 2009 4:12PM

@jimmyn

I'm a few years removed from my journalism First Amendment classes, but I don't think this falls under that public forum exception. I was thinking that the standard interpretation was usually reserved for spaces routinely used for political speech. While political speech might occur on the PSN, that is not a primary function of the space. He would also have to demonstrate that he was banned due to some valued speech, and not for obscene or worthless speech.

I'm trying to think of a good example, like if your local newspaper held weekly round tables discussing issues important to the community. If they kicked you out for voicing an unpopular opinion, even though it was held on private property, you might be able to make a First Amendment claim because that business had set up a regular public forum that was open to the community.

I don't even remember any of the court cases that actually deal in this area.

vidGuy @ Jul 21st 2009 4:16PM

You are correct, Courtney; see below for my comment about a couple similar cases.

gib @ Jul 21st 2009 4:17PM

@ Evan_ARRRR

Sexual preference is not a protected right under Amendment 14 (like race, sex, age, national origin, etc), so technically it can be discriminated against.

vidGuy @ Jul 21st 2009 4:23PM

14th Amendment. Protects race, national origin, religion. Entities liable: federal and state governments (and city, county, etc). Amendment specifically limited to only governments (Civil Rights cases of 1883)

Civil Rights Act of 1866. Protects race. Entities liable: States, private actors (Sp Ct holding 1968).

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Protects race, color, religion, national origin. Entities liable: Private establishments; establishments (as listed) if their “operations affect commerce” or if discrimination by it is supported by state action

Victoryismine @ Jul 21st 2009 4:33PM

Public Forum or not you still have to agree to Sony's Terms of use and if you breach that then they have every right to ban you.

mahouneko @ Jul 21st 2009 4:33PM

@ jimmy:
Most courts have ruled "public forums" to mean physical open spaces like the D.C. Memorial area between the monument and the pond (inclusive). The reasoning is that denial of such physical spaces for political opinions is a physical threat to the Constitution.

Online/Web forums are not "public" nor are they physical. Most web forums require people to register and agree to the EULA. In that sense, web forums are legally "private" therefore whatever 1st Amendment BS that this kid is complaining about literally cannot be enforced because he is arguing against a private entity's "private property."

The only exception to the rule would be IF the government had the resources to put up a web forum, even then it would be a slightly grey area mostly because of the interpretation between what is and what isn't "private property". The government has military installations that are "off limits" to the public; it's not hard to assume that the government can be considered as a "private" entity if some douche were to get his arse banned from a government web forum.

mynk @ Jul 21st 2009 4:38PM

she wasnt banned because she was a lesbian, she was banned for listing herself as so. microsoft rules inculde not expressing sexual orientation, and they said if someone was to include that they are straight/heterosexual in their profile, they would also get banned. it is so that minors do not fall upon the bio and end up asking their parents what lesbians are.

Kevin @ Jul 21st 2009 4:41PM

How is he buying PSN cards if he is agoraphobic? On another note, once you buy the card you have ultimately pre-purchased merchandise off of the PSN. This guy is ridiculous.

Lars @ Jul 21st 2009 4:47PM

@jimmyn28

it's clearly not a public forum. I would consider message boards a public forum way before I'd consider PSN. The primary function of PSN is to allow network gaming, not political discussion. IF there was anything at all to this, then certainly all the online forums that have ever banned anyone would also be found guilty of breaching rights too.

And anyways, the law only applies to the government silencing the voice of the people... it does not prevent civilians or corporations from silencing people.

Duke @ Jul 21st 2009 4:58PM

Jimmy, go to law school and then tell us how the First amendment works within the law. You are wrong - as said before by the people above, this is not a public forum issue, Sony is not the government, and they have the right to enforce their EULA as they see fit. People do not have the 1st amendment protection they have been fooled into believing exists in every aspect of life. (As a journalism major you may want to defer to those of us that have law degrees on this one.)

Andrew @ Jul 21st 2009 5:16PM

It doesn't matter if it's a public forum or not. The First Amendment protects a citizen's freedom of expression from persecution by the Federal Government. Corporations and individuals cannot infringe upon another's freedom of speech.

Duke @ Jul 21st 2009 5:35PM

Seriously, I just want to know who is voting Jimmy up right now as he was whited out. Tell us whoever you are how what he said is correct in the slightest.

Fullmetal Salchemist @ Jul 21st 2009 6:05PM

what it really boils down to is whether or not you would consider PSN to be a "public forum"

No judge with half a barely functioning brain is going to consider PSN to be a "public forum" because it's owned by Sony, not the government. In a private forum, you're free to impose whatever arbitrary rules you feel necessary. This will get tossed out.

Phil @ Jul 21st 2009 6:08PM

@jimmyn28

Actually it could be argued very well that the PSN is NOT a public forum since there is a registration AND a T.O.S. that you must agree to. Sony reserves the right to ban people... it's in the T.O.S. mentioned earlier.

Also, First Amendment only works on public property, sidewalks, parks, state capitol, etc... You can stand out in the street and say whatever you want but you dont have free reign inside my home.

jimmyn28 @ Jul 21st 2009 7:58PM

I just want to clarify something: I never suggested in any way that PSN is, in fact, a public forum. All I meant was that for First-Amendment cases to have any weight, there has to be some sort of free speech conflict within a public forum. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone below me that PSN isn't a public forum (as the Internet is a very touchy subject).

Shaun @ Jul 21st 2009 9:12PM

i am sincerely proud of the intelligent and educated (jimmyn28) people who are posting here at joystiq on this article. Yay us!

jimmyn28 @ Jul 21st 2009 10:07PM

Why are you insulting me? So my post was a bit out of context, and many people misunderstood, and that calls for a caustic remark. Okay. That makes sense now. Forgive my idiocy.

gst @ Jul 21st 2009 10:28PM

@jimmy

some Rules of the Internet:

1.Flame first; ask the person to clarify what they said later.

2.Whether or not someone has already been called out several times already for the same comment, they will be ripped on again for it.

3.And never start a sentence with "as a ____ major."
Okay, so that's not really a rule of the internet so much as a general opinion of mine; it just seems like a good way to get in trouble with all the anonymous doctors, lawyers, PhDs, scientists, registered nurses, American Politics 101 TAs, etc who may be lurking.

JudasPrius @ Jul 21st 2009 10:39PM

@jimmyn28

Nope. No backsies, sir! Accept your fate.

jimmyn28 @ Jul 21st 2009 11:01PM

Forgive my commenting ineptitude (noobness). I will bear your suggestions in mind in the future. Thank you!

Fullmetal Salchemist @ Jul 22nd 2009 1:13AM

@everyone in this post:

Nothing is protected speech in a private place. If I arbitrarily decide that I won't allow Armenians, lefties, or people with green eyes into my house, that's my prerogative, because it's my house, not a public forum/area.

PSN [and XBLA] are both wholly owned by their respective corporations. They are free to implement any system of rules, no matter how lax or tyrannical, at their whim, because it's privately owned.

"Public" does not legally mean "large amounts of people are allowed to access/use it."

five8 @ Jul 22nd 2009 3:01AM

jimmyn28 @ Jul 21st 2009 10:07PM

Why are you insulting me? So my post was a bit out of context, and
many people misunderstood, and that calls for a caustic remark. Okay.
That makes sense now. Forgive my idiocy.

Just so you know, when i first read your comment, that's how i
understood it. Doesn't sound idiotic just from reading why this guy
is sueing in the first place. but yah, those couple "rules of
internet", that's some pretty sound advice.

Patrick @ Jul 22nd 2009 10:18AM

First amendment right is to protect freedom of speech from government tyranny. Any private business has the right to deny them service as long as they met a non racial, non gender biased, set of criteria.

Since there was no way for them to know that he was black unless he was calling himself and everyone else a nigger all the time, then there was no racial bias. Since most of the PS3 owners are males, that means no gender bias.

This guy has no case, this guy has no argument. He could just as easily go on Gaia Online, WoW, or any of the other social areas on the net.

I don't care if this guy doesn't have friends because of his supposed "Agorophobia" Let me tell you this guy doesn't have friends not because of his problem, but because he's a dick. The same reason he was most likely banned from the PSN. Now I'm going to go play more Disgaea 3 and name my sword "Vagina Rapier of DOOM!" To go with my fist weapon "Cat Puncher"

There's someone named like "STFUASSMUNCHER" or something like that on PSN... Yet THIS dude gets banned...

relaxeder @ Jul 21st 2009 3:04PM

Oh my god, are you kidding me.

Paul @ Jul 21st 2009 3:27PM

god I hate this country more and more every day. I wonder how much of my of my taxes will be wasted on this. Can I sue the government for wasting my money.

MystileArmor @ Jul 21st 2009 3:38PM

YOU DON'T EVEN PAY TAXES, YOU ASSHAT!

Shmil @ Jul 21st 2009 4:16PM

I don't think you can sue the government for that reason, but you're more than welcome to go back to France.

Paul @ Jul 21st 2009 4:30PM

I don't get the france comment. I've never been to france. I was born here. In fact I'm a native.

and I do pay taxes asshat. been paying them all my life.

dblakenz @ Jul 21st 2009 4:51PM

lol @ America. "Pain and Suffering"? That's like the fall-back option for suing someone. Why is it when an American get's their feeling's hurt they must sue?!

Lawyer: "So son, why are you suing Sony today?".
American Dumbass: "I dunno, they banned me and hurt my feelings"
Lawyer: "...... right...... how about we sue them for $50,000 for Pain and suffering"
American Dumbass: "... yea sounds about right...."
Lawyer: "Done!"

I hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings.... please don't sue me....

Though seriously most Americans are ok online, they's just some idiot's that deserve what's coming for them, and this guy sounds like one!