Freedom of Speech in Online Game Worlds

In the offline world, we've seen this intersection inemail messages when a spammer tried to send spam
(among other situations) U.S. Supreme Court casesthrough AOL's network. In other words, in theory,
addressing private speech at privately ownedcourts could do something about providers squelching
company towns and shopping centers. In somespeech, but have sided with providers because the
cases, the Supreme Court has said that certainConstitution doesn't apply in these cases. But how do
landowners cannot prevent speakers from speakingwe 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 thekick off a user? In both cases, the online provider
speaker's right to speak on the property, allowing thecan choose, but we're tempted to side with AOL on
landowner to "censor" the speaker.In the onlinespam and side against virtual world providers on
world, the speech/rights dichotomy raises equallyeverything else. It's that inconsistency that I'm trying
complex issues. Online private actors routinely useto address here.The virtual world industry is
their private property (such as computers andburgeoning. Millions of users participate in such
networks) to create virtual spaces designed forcomplex interactive spaces as EverQuest, Second
speech, although speaker access is usually controlledLife, World of Warcraft, and The Sims Online. With
by contract. An online provider exercising its propertythe emergence of these "virtual worlds," we must
or contract rights inevitably squelches a speaker'sonce again consider how we balance a customer's
rights. But despite online providers' capacity tospeech against a virtual world provider's rights to
exercise their rights capriciously, courts so far havesquelch speech. To strike a balance, we must decide
unanimously held that private online providers are notwhether virtual worlds are more like physical world
state actors for First Amendment purposes. In onecompany towns or shopping centers, or are just
representative case, AOL could refuse to deliveranother category of online providers.