• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cringe Being 'muted' in a game does not violate your civil rights, US federal court declares

Mista

Dragonslayer
Nov 21, 2014
16,493
25,580
1,340


Sometime during March and April 2019, Amro Elansari found himself muted in an online game run by Jagex—specifically, according to Pennlive, the MMO Runescape. His appeal of the muting was denied, and so he took the next natural, perfectly reasonable step and filed a DIY lawsuit, available via VICE, alleging that Jagex had engaged in discrimination against him, and violated his rights to free speech and "due process."

In a not-exactly-shocking development, the lawsuit was quickly dismissed. In a ruling posted to brian.carnell.com, District Judge Mark Kearney declared that his federal constitutional claims over being muted in a videogame "are implausible."

Kerney's restraint is audible as he educates the plaintiff on the basics of constitutional law. "The First Amendment and its constitutional free speech guarantees restrict government actors, not private entities. Defendants, who are not alleged to be state actors, are not subject to constitutional free speech guarantees," Kearney wrote. Likewise, "The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause 'appl[ies] to and restrict only the Federal Government and not private persons,' and does not act against a private company."

That seems pretty straightforward to me—the First Amendment literally begins with the words "Congress shall make no law"—but Elansari quickly appealed anyway, and the non-shocking outcomes continued: Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shot him down again. His first claim, based on the 14th Amendment, was invalid, the court ruled, because, again, "state action is a prerequisite for bringing a 14th Amendment claim, and Elansari has made no allegations indication that any named defendant is a state actor."

The second claim is even more interesting. "Next, citing Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Elansari maintains that the District Court should have identified and considered a claim of public accommodations discrimination in Elansari's complaint. Elansari insists that defendant Jagex should be liable for 'unequal treatment' because Elansari's account was 'muted … compared to all other players who were not muted,'" the ruling, available on Justia, states.

"Title II prohibits 'discrimination … on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.' Even generously construing Elansari's complaint to raise a claim of public accommodations discrimination and assuming that Elansari can bring such a claim in this context, at no point either in the District Court or on appeal has Elansari alleged losing access to Jagex's online game to due discrimination based on any grounds protected by Title II."

With no error shown in the decision to dismiss the complaint, the appeals court upheld the original ruling: Getting muted in a videogame does not constitute a violation of your constitutional rights.

The Pennlive report says that Ansari has filed ten lawsuits in the US Eastern District Court over the last year and a half, including four in July 2019, including the Jagex suit. In November 2019, a federal appeals court rejected his effort to bring a class action suit against Tinder, noting that he was ineligible to represent other plaintiffs because he's not a lawyer, and that the damages he could reasonably seek were nowhere near the $75,000 minimum required.

 
Last edited:

M1chl

Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,434
1,832
590
Czech Republic
Some people in USA takes constitution deeply seriously as it seems. Or not, when it comes to guns...

It would be funny, if ti would be The Onion article...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hendrick's

Chacranajxy

I paid good money for this Dynex!
Oct 13, 2008
18,728
2,391
1,215
Yeah, no fucking shit. This conclusion could’ve been arrived at in a single drunken google search about how the most basic building block of our constitution works.
 

theclaw135

Member
Oct 1, 2014
841
190
430
In the literal sense... muting a player only stops others from hearing them.

This makes for an interesting dilemma between the letter of the law, and its intended meaning.
 
Last edited:
May 25, 2014
1,075
263
480
I can picture this fuck clearly, basically the karen "i want to see the manager" but a guy. A guy that can't comprehend that something might be his fault, that he isn't owed shit

Edit: but hilarious to read about 😂
 
Last edited:

Saberyoko

Member
Jan 30, 2019
1,942
1,498
380
No freaking way one is muted just "because". If he is muted is for a goddamn reason.

Used to mute alot of assholes over internet games. Trashtalking, playing loud annoying music, heavy toxicity, name calling, you name it.

Instead of wasting people time with stupid lawsuit, he should try to be a better person. Just remember that Free speech doesn't mean others are obligated to hear shit from you.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: MightySquirrel

stickkidsam

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2018
750
649
465
Hard not to laugh at this.

I can understand the argument of "public" spaces like Twitter or YouTube silencing someone being an issue of free speech, but getting muted in a video game? That's essentially the same as someone putting their fingers in their ears; you can still talk but that person doesn't need to hear you.
 

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
4,575
737
435
The second argument is much more interesting indeed.

the case you are looking for is heart of Atlanta motel.
 

MiyazakiHatesKojima

Gold Member
Jan 11, 2019
8,392
25,238
1,105
Tokyo, Japan

Ahjumbie

Member
Mar 26, 2013
2,951
2,334
910
www.twitch.tv
My friend's wife is a court reporter for smalls claim and I remember her telling me that some of the sh*t people try to sue for makes her have to bite her tongue so she doesn't laugh out loud.
 
Last edited:

Kamina

Golden Boy
Jun 2, 2013
5,239
2,880
760
34
Austria
My friend's wife is a court reporter for smalls claim and I remember her telling me that some of the sh*t people try to sue for makes her have to bite her tongue so she doesn't laugh out loud.
Well, thats the system America built for itself.
 
Last edited:

Ahjumbie

Member
Mar 26, 2013
2,951
2,334
910
www.twitch.tv
Well, thats the system America built for itself.
Indubitably. Small claims generally dont include lawyers so you can sue someone till rapture as this guy has done 10 TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF! She's worked with the same judge for many years and she did say when he sees the same person time and time again a bias forms against them and believe me that ain't good
 
Last edited:

SpartanN92

Gold Member
Sep 7, 2012
3,699
3,962
865
US
Amendment 1 said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Video game companies can suppress your speech all they want. Congress on the other hand may not.