First Amendment of the United States of America

​

The First Amendment has been fundamental to the preservation and growth of the video game industry in the United States and around the world as well as protecting the rights and civil liberties of all American Citizens.  As such we diligently seek to fight for and preserve these freedoms as well as defense of the Constitution of the United States of America.

​

Protection through Freedom of Speech and Expression

​

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression protects video game publishers, developers, artists, storytellers, music producers and all other areas of the game industry have enabled the groundbreaking diversity and experiences in interactive entertainment and the consumers (the gamers/players) of games.

​

Protection from Infringement upon these Freedoms

​

1. More so in the 1980's and 1990's, with periodic attempts still made to this day for calls to suppress, regulate and limit video game content, it was ruled as an infringement upon these guaranteed and protected rights.

2. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that video games are protected speech and expression, and that any efforts to limit or ban video game content violated the First Amendment in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association & Entertainment Software Association (2011).

3. At the same time, the video game industry recognized the importance of providing information and tools for all audiences to make their own educated, age-appropriate purchasing decisions regarding video games.

4. For more than two decades, the industry has worked through the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) to ensure that consumers, especially parents, legal guardians and caregivers, have the resources, including voluntary ratings, needed to make informed decisions about video games and their content.

5. The effectiveness of those efforts has been praised by the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and more.

 

1997 - Internet Free Speech

 

1. In ACLU v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by broadly banning "indecent" speech. Since then, Congress has passed numerous versions of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a federal law that would criminalize constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. Each time the law has been challenged by the ACLU and declared unconstitutional.

 

2023 - Currently -Internet Free Speech vs. Anti-Terrorism Act and Liabilities

​

1. In the cases of Gonzalez cs. Google and Twitter vs. Taamneh, free speech and user rights considerations have been mostly ignored  by the current Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule for the plaintiffs, online platforms would effectively be compelled to remove vast amounts of content that is protected under international freedom of expression standards to shield themselves from liability.

2. Furthermore the current actions of platforms have been 'encouraged' to increasingly rely on automated content moderation tools in a manner that over-restricts speech and expression by end users as a result of ignoring or disregarding protected speech and expression of users which allows or forces platforms to over-restrict speech and expression of users and effectively violating user rights as a political move.

3. The claim is to call into question if the 1996 Communications Decency Act covers recommendation systems. Section 230, however, was revised in a manner that grants legal immunity to online platforms for content posted by third parties and allows platforms to remove 'at will' any objectionable content without exposing themselves to liability and treated differently than video game publishers, developers, artists, storytellers, music producers and all other areas of the game industry.

4. Limiting Section 230 immunity in that way would have consequences well beyond liability under the ATA, exposing platforms to all sorts of legal actions, such as defamation or discrimination claims, while also placing user speech and expression in jeopardy in such a manner as to also make users liable to all sorts of legal actions, including, but not limited to legal actions, such as defamation or discrimination claims simply by expressing anything that someone else claims or considers 'objectionable.'

5. This would effectively increase restrictions and unlawful censorship, violate freedom of press further, and violate freedom of speech and expression which in turn violates constitutionally protected rights and guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America which safeguards individuals from legal action or incarceration for expressing views or opinions contrary to the views or opinions of others and the right to protest any actions by the Federal Government that citizens are afforded the right to to redress the Government for grievances while also allowing expanded opportunities to unlawful violation of citizens privacy online and online and increased in unlawful surveillance.  

6. This would place a defendant platform under ATA liability even if it lacks any knowledge or awareness of a particular terrorist group recruiting or initiating an attack by using a platform as a means of such correspondences or communications using covert terms, symbols or expressions as 'secret' speech and expression or 'coded/veiled' language.

7. This makes platforms and individual citizens of the United States of America effectively liable for actions taken by foreign actors and foreign governments decrees and determinations that do not insure, guarantee or protect or defend individuals or companies freedoms of speech and/or expression for which United States of America citizens and companies should not and cannot be subject to without the violation of their protected rights and civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States of America.   

8. Furthermore, If we’re not pinpointing cause-and-effect or proximate cause for specific things, and you’re focused on infrastructure or just the availability of these platforms, then it would effectively make every claimed or actual terrorist act that uses any platform or means of communication and expression  an aider and abettor by proxy in those instance rather than focusing solely on those actual terrorist acts and actors themselves for initiating such actions which is simply unjustifiable.

9. It would effectively be along the same lines of holding a neighborhood and all home owners in said neighborhood responsible and liable for any unlawful act by a neighbor or someone who simply entered into a neighborhood who is committing a crime, instead of focusing on the the individual with criminal intentions committing or attempting to commit the crime.

​

The Supreme Court Largely Ignored Threats to Free Speech

​

1. While the Justices seemed generally aware of the ramifications of a decision for the future of the internet, they mostly ignored the implications their ruling could have for free speech and user rights which is unacceptable.

2. The sheer scale of the content potentially giving rise to liability, which amounts to millions of posts per day, also did not play a major role in the discussion which is also a problem and the lack of consideration free speech and user rights is a disregard for the protection of those rights and civil liberties.

3. Failure to protect the freedoms of speech and expression and subjecting such to the demands of foreign governments is unacceptable, as many many governments ask for removal of content as a way to silence dissent and control speech and expression as a back door to control other countries and their citizens rather than as a tool to prevent terrorist attacks, often regarding any 'objection' to how a government treats its citizens as 'alleged terrorism,' including any objections to citizens human rights violations.

4. The same governments that do not care about the freedoms of its citizens also consider any protects or open objections that are actually peaceful, and simply seek relief or redress of grievances that do not involve violence are also defined in such countries as 'terrorism' against the 'State' and uses censorship as a tool of oppression rather than concerns for human life and well being. These are the same countries that consider our freedoms as protected by the constitution as a threat to their often globalist and tyrannical governance.   

5. One of the nonsensical arguments include such statements as "The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet." This isn't entirely true. Those who are "cracking down" are the same ones that have, as stated before, historically sought to completely silence private and public communications as a way to censor its citizens as a tool of oppression and silence them from informing the rest of the world of the ongoing violations of their basic human rights and civil liberties.

6. The whole point of the Constitution of the United States of America was created with the first and second amendments specifically because the 'rest of the world' sought to silent dissent, control media and disarm its citizens from defending themselves and one another and form a united front against such tyranny. The internet has widened and expanded that opportunity to give a louder voice to those who would otherwise be silenced.

7. One party or individual should not be alone permitted to determine the communication and expression of all people as it gives a voice only to a few while silencing the right and freedoms of others to object or agree as they choose. Regulating speech and expression does not allow open dialogue and discourse. It suppresses it.

8. It also takes away the freedom of individuals to speak up and against things they object to which is a basic human right for all people, not an approved few who alone are allowed to have a voice or means of expression, and in such censorship imposes blind conformity or ability to question or object to what is imposed. 

9. Certainly the protection or children and minors is important as a given. The simple solution to that is if such platforms are deemed unsafe or inappropriate for children and minors to have access to that must extend to all areas, not a selective few areas, and therefore instead of silencing adults, it is simple enough to require age verification as a reasonable measure against exposure of children to such content.

10. However, if such does not extend to parental choices to what their children are exposed to in such as public schools and elsewhere, than it contradicts any and all child protection acts and therefore becomes unjustifiable selective enforcement. Therefore any censorship on adult communications and expressions by and for adults as inappropriate for children if implemented must extend to more than just online modes of communication and expression and is the responsibility of those who violate access restrictions of such content or the publishers of content targeting children or by minors, not the adults or platforms said individuals seek to violate.    

​​

To date: 06/02/2023

​

1. As of yet, there has been no update that has been found that indicates any changes have been made or what the ruling actually is. Till that time we shall continue to act and operate as a constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression Platform.

2. In turn we will also enforce out own policies, terms and EULA in conjunction with those protected rights and civil liberties and will revise this section of Protected Freedoms and what parts of our policies, terms and EULA must be or need to be adapted to comply with those rulings accordingly.

​​

We honor and will defend these rights

​

Based on these rulings we also, as many have, do and will, stand by and defend these rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and will stand against anyone who seeks to continue to strip away these rights from this and all industries as well as the individual citizen of the United States of America.