| In the offline world, we've seen this intersection in | | | | email messages when a spammer tried to send spam |
| (among other situations) U.S. Supreme Court cases | | | | through AOL's network. In other words, in theory, |
| addressing private speech at privately owned | | | | courts could do something about providers squelching |
| company towns and shopping centers. In some | | | | speech, but have sided with providers because the |
| cases, the Supreme Court has said that certain | | | | Constitution doesn't apply in these cases. But how do |
| landowners cannot prevent speakers from speaking | | | | we distinguish between AOL's response to spam |
| on their private property. However, in other cases, | | | | (which seems right) and a virtual world's decision to |
| the landowner's property rights have trumped the | | | | kick off a user? In both cases, the online provider |
| speaker's right to speak on the property, allowing the | | | | can choose, but we're tempted to side with AOL on |
| landowner to "censor" the speaker.In the online | | | | spam and side against virtual world providers on |
| world, the speech/rights dichotomy raises equally | | | | everything else. It's that inconsistency that I'm trying |
| complex issues. Online private actors routinely use | | | | to address here.The virtual world industry is |
| their private property (such as computers and | | | | burgeoning. Millions of users participate in such |
| networks) to create virtual spaces designed for | | | | complex interactive spaces as EverQuest, Second |
| speech, although speaker access is usually controlled | | | | Life, World of Warcraft, and The Sims Online. With |
| by contract. An online provider exercising its property | | | | the emergence of these "virtual worlds," we must |
| or contract rights inevitably squelches a speaker's | | | | once again consider how we balance a customer's |
| rights. But despite online providers' capacity to | | | | speech against a virtual world provider's rights to |
| exercise their rights capriciously, courts so far have | | | | squelch speech. To strike a balance, we must decide |
| unanimously held that private online providers are not | | | | whether virtual worlds are more like physical world |
| state actors for First Amendment purposes. In one | | | | company towns or shopping centers, or are just |
| representative case, AOL could refuse to deliver | | | | another category of online providers. |