First and foremost, to me, this isn't so much an issue over Free Speech as it is Breach of Contract. In the EULA's header it states that the rules are for governing actions in the game and on the VI/Sony boards. That's it. Period. What was done (the story(ies)) happened OUTSIDE of VI's contractual "jurisdiction", therefore opening them up to Breach of Contract.

In the original thread on the EQ boards, I slapped up (what I felt) was a decent analogy of this... here goes: If I go into a store that has a "No Shirt/No Shoes" sign while wearing sandals, purchase a Coke then leave the store, I have entered into a brief contract with that establishment. They agreed that I had met their criteria to purchase a product, I did so, deal done. Now if the owner's wife happened to see me in the parking lot, saw my sandals, and told her husband that she felt sandals weren't shoes, and sent him out to take my Coke back without refunding my cash, and locking the door behind him as he went back in... he just broke that contract. (technically, it would be petty theft, but this is an analogy, so throw me a bone ;pp )

What VI has done is the same. The writer enterred into a contract with VI by paying XXX dollars for YYY days of service. in doing so, she agreed to comport herself as called for in the EULA whenever she was in the VI domain. Once she left that domain to post on an outside site, she was also out of reach of the contractual rules.

I personally hope she's on the phone with the ACLU even as we speak. Although I didn't really care for the theme, nor the needlessly descriptive parts of the story, I can't STAND for someone to bully other folks like that.

Remember folks, just because it may be in a contract, it's not necessarily legal. If VI tries to alter the EULA to cover private forums, that could very well fall into the "reasonable person" area (ie: would a reasonable person agree to this rule), thereby nullifying the contract.

Dammit!!! now my mind is all alitter with legalities and not on my COBOL project ;ppp

-=B=-
The Rathe

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: mike.langlois@...
Reply-To: eqbards@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:02:31 -0500

>
>This is a tad mixed. While you are certainly correct about
>race/gender/etc, every private club (which represents a subscription
>service like EQ), or business is allowed a no shoes/no service type clause.
>The First Amendment cannot be invoked to allow you to recite erotic poetry
>at your local barbershop.
>
>The barber can throw you out of his establishment. Now, the law WILL allow
>you to recite the same poetry in a public forum, such as the street
>outside. That's not private property.
>
>G
>
>===============Original Text=======================
>
>Not true. The Supreme Court has long upheld that private establishments
>may
>not refuse service to people on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age,
>or beliefs. They have long ago expanded this to include exercise of one's
>right of Free Speech. (The "Fire!" exclusion not included).
>
>There are exceptions to this naturally.
>
>In one notable case in point in Florida, a man was refused service in a
>prominent restaurant because he wrote a controversial column in a local
>magazine. The man sued the restaurant and lost, but was upheld on appeal
>to
>the federal district court of appeals on the basis of discrimination. The
>argument on the side of the restaurant was that having the man as a
>customer
>offended their other customers because they knew what he had written and
>that writing offended them. The court upheld that this was not sufficient
>reason to bar him from an otherwise public place, nor to refuse him
>service.
>
>Wish I could remember the exact case from my law class but unfortunately
>that was 12 years ago.
>
>
>
>Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@... with the subject submissions.
>
>