My brother pulled the
court documents on this case. The reasons behind Erik Estavillo's case are at best completely laughable and at worst, outright stupid. It doesn't help that he feels he doesn't need a lawyer and is providing his own defense.
For reference, here is
Sony's Online User Agreement. In it, Sony clearly states they may ban anyone they choose in the game
Resistance: Fall of Man or any of their titles. They're not forcing anyone to use their software -- online or off -- but if they do, they are subject to the agreement they made in order to play it.
I'm going to answer each one of these...
1. He claims his First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech was violated in a public forum, which I'm assuming means "game servers." So what if the servers are public? You're agreeing to behave a certain way on them. As Sony owns both the game and the servers you're using, you either accept the OUA or don't play.
It's as stupid as saying, "Since a museum is open to the public, I don't have to obey the law." You do and simply because you paid to get in (just like Estavillo paid for the game), that doesn't mean your First Amendment Rights trump the rules you've agreed to, especially if you're trampling all over someone else's rights.
2. Okay, this one I agree with. San Jose, California does have the right to try the case.
3. I can understand stating who the plaintiff and defendant is, but... what why does it matter that Estavillo graduated from UCLA? Court cases like this don't care if you came from Harvard or a community college. None of that has any bearing on the subject matter of this case.
4. So Estavillo is supposedly "disabled" and suffers from "obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, major depression, crohn's disease and agoraphobia." That's a huge list, isn't it?
I don't see how OCD, crohn's disease and depression (which they labeled as "major depression" instead of "clinical depression") have any effect on this. None of those are relieved by playing a game, especially crohn's disease. Panic disorder might be a problem, but then again, if he's prone to short-term panic attacks, I doubt playing an action-oriented game in which death and loss is a common occurrence really helps.
The only disorder he has that might really benefit from online gaming is Agoraphobia. However, that's a condition that requires treatment well beyond that of the PS3. In fact, he needs to see a doctor (a gastroenterologist and a psychologist/psychiatrist) and if he hasn't, relying on a game to solve his problems is foolish.
5. Yeah, Sony owns
Resistance: Fall of Man, the servers and employs the moderators. Once again, he agreed to the OUA and that allows the moderators to enforce Sony's rules.
He claims the moderators kick and ban players whom they (the moderators) are biased against. I'm sure that occurs, but the option to ban or kick is up to a moderator's discression. How can you even prove that a moderator did anything because of a bias?
Estavillo says that there's no need for moderators since any player can mute or ignore any other player. That certainly helps, but sometimes there are idiots who will purposefully chase down and repeatedly kill another player "for kicks." Again, it's hard to prove that, but even if muted or ignored, a player can ruin the game for someone else.
6. This says Estavillo was banned from a "public forum" in which he was "exercising" his First Amendment Rights. The document then goes on to say that because of this, he was banned from the video game itself and all other games on the PlayStation Network.
Because there's a distinction made between "public forum" and "video game," I can only assume that some of his abusive behavior occurred on a message board. Like any message board, you agree to a certain set of rules when joining. Those rules supersede that of anyone's First Amendment Rights.
That makes sense, too. Is everyone on there an American? If not, does the Constitution of the United States apply to them or just Americans? A forums and online games are global. People from all over the world go on them and because of that, there must be a "universal" set of rules that apply to everyone on that board or game.
I do agree that banning him from the entire PlayStation Network was a little much. Sure, ban him from
Resistance: Fall of Man, but the network? You can do more on there than play games.
I don't know if Sony is the only one who enforces a wide-ranged ban. I don't have a PS3 nor do I own an Xbox 360, so Microsoft's rules are unknown to me as well. I do have a Wii and although I've never been banned (I don't play online much and the options to do so on the Wii are limited), I can't help but think that Nintendo would have a stricter policy. After all, the Wii generally appeals to "casual gamers" and so gamers on it would more likely be offended by certain online activity.
7. Who cares if recently bought a PS3 or
Resistance: Fall of Man? The length of time anyone's had the system or the game is irrelevant.
Apparently he bought quite a few PlayStation Network Redeem Cards in $20 increments. Because he's been banned from the PlayStation Network, he can't access that money and he wants it back.
I can understand that. But... if Sony handles redeem cards the same way Nintendo does, it's clearly stated that cards can't be refunded. If I purchase 5,000 points on the Wii (the equivalent of $5) and I suddenly decide I don't want those points, I can't get a refund. Nintendo warns that money put toward points and their online network are irredeemable.
If Sony has a different policy, then I agree he should get his money back for those cards. He doesn't have to regain access to the network. All he'd need is a refund.
8. Estavillo says Sony's OUA shouldn't matter because
Resistance: Fall of Man is a mature-rated game (17+) and gamers younger than that still play it online. That's not Sony's fault. It can't monitor the age of who purchases what game (but stores and parents can). All online games even state that the rating "may change during online play." That alone gives Sony enough leeway to allow underage gamers to play.
Even if this was an issue, Estavillo is over 18, can legally play the game according to its offline rating and was banned not for any age requirements, but due to harassment and abusive behavior. Furthermore, if most of his activities occurred on a message board, that completely voids his argument as the game is rated 17+, not the forums.
9. The only part I agree with is if Sony does allow refunds, it should give Estavillo back his money.
10. He's nuts if he thinks he can get $55,000 for "pain and suffering." At best he'll get refunded the money he spent on PlayStation Network cards.
11. A jury in a civil court case? Good luck. It's exceedingly rare to find a jury-held civil case. Many jurisdictions don't even allow a jury. Sole discretion is left to the judge.
I honestly think he'd be better off forgetting about the case. He'll spend more money on it than he'll ever get in return.
What did he do to get such a severe punishment anyway?