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