With regards to the community guidlines and freedom of speech.

[[57th] Chloe]

Yes, this does stem from a ban coming from a community post. More specifically a 24 hour ban for quoting in and replying to someone posting an offensive message about the OP. I basically told him that the original poster had every right to say what he did, he basically thanked the devs for a free DLC. It's really not about the ban, it's more the principle that just because steam have the power to do something it doesn't mean they have the right especially when bound not to exercise such power if they respect the lawful agreement.

Included in the steam subscriber agreement, you might be interested to find below. Is a manner in which it could easily be interpreted as restricting the application of their community "guidelines" by way of legally binding terms in an agreement.

1. REGISTRATION AS A SUBSCRIBER; APPLICATION OF TERMS TO YOU; YOUR ACCOUNT, ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENTS ⏶

Steam is an online service offered by Valve.

You become a subscriber of Steam ("Subscriber") by completing the registration of a Steam user account. This Agreement takes effect as soon as you indicate your acceptance of these terms. You may not become a Subscriber if you are under the age of 13. Steam is not intended for children under 13 and Valve will not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 13. Additional age restrictions may apply in your country.

A. Contracting Party

For any interaction with Steam your contractual relationship is with Valve. Except as otherwise indicated herein or at the time of the transaction (such as in the case of purchases from another Subscriber in a Subscription Marketplace), any transactions for Subscriptions (as defined below) you make on Steam are being made from Valve.

BELOW CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 10.

For EU and UK Subscribers:

This Agreement is governed by the law of the country where you have your habitual residence.

In the event of a dispute relating to the interpretation, the performance or the validity of the Subscriber Agreement, an amicable solution may be sought before any legal action. You can file your complaint at http://help.steampowered.com. The European Commission provides an Online Dispute Resolution website for EU consumers at https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr. Participation in this website is not available to US companies, which is why Valve is not registered there. However, insofar as your complaint concerns the behavior of Valve’s data protection representative Valve GmbH you can file your complaint there.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 ARTICLE 10 OF THE GOVERNING LAW, Human Rights Act 1998

Article 10
Freedom of expression -
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

I'm very curious as to how some people find such ease in saying "NO FREE SPEECH REEE NO INTERNET LAWS BAAD STEAM SET RULES", Steam have set the rules, the rules by which they are bound and with regards to UK and EU based subscribers whom by way of owning an account have a legally binding agreement which includes terms restriction their ability to act outside of laws governed by aforementioned nations.

[xBCxRangers]

Well, it is a business, but what sets its apart in regards to Freedom Of Speech issues, as compared to other businesses, in their protection under Title 2. That should be removed as far as Valves possible liabilities.

Which is to say, a business owner can be sued for what happens under their roof. Example would be, they don't let folks with placards protest in their store, being it interrupts business, and if someone is hurt, they're liable.

So should Valve, if they have the ability (and they certainly do) to effectively moderate their fora, they should be sued, if someone is harrassed, or libeled, what not, should hold the bag, on their official and game hub forums.

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису xBCxRangers:

Well, it is a business, but what sets its apart in regards to Freedom Of Speech issues, as compared to other businesses, in their protection under Title 2. That should be removed as far as Valves possible liabilities.

Which is to say, a business owner can be sued for what happens under their roof. Example would be, they don't let folks with placards protest in their store, being it interrupts business, and if someone is hurt, they're liable.

So should Valve, if they have the ability (and they certainly do) to effectively moderate their fora, they should be sued, if someone is harrassed, or libeled, what not, should hold the bag, on their official and game hub forums.

I'm presuming that'd be Title II Civil Rights Act 1964? I'm unfamiliar with the case law surrounding the US on such matters.

Title 2 wouldn't apply in this legal setting and if it did case law would have had to determine between title 2 and article 18 Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 18

Limitation on use of restrictions on rights
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

"So should Valve, if they have the ability (and they certainly do) to effectively moderate their fora, they should be sued, if someone is harrassed, or libeled, what not, should hold the bag, on their official and game hub forums."; On this specific point, no as laws specifically exist in the UK which cover "malicious communications" and as such their actions should be in line with the law as should their guidelines concerning it, rereading this a few times to try and attempt to follow what you mean. "They should be sued" as in valve should be sued for another person exercising a legal right? Unless of course you mean they commit a hate crime or violate the legally prescribed bounds for limitation of ones freedom of expression, because if they were to facilitate such behaviour it would be unlawful under a recent online safety bill passed in the UK not to mention those actions are also tantamount to violations of other rights. This right is a qualified right meaning that restrictions may apply if you like, predefined and legally set restrictions that is.

I tell you what Valve should do if they wish to operate somewhere and then have a binding agreement with a person is, and that is, to follow the laws and terms of the agreement they have entered into.

[HikariLight]

Freedom of Speech is freedom of persecution from the government based on what you say.
It does NOT mean freedom from consequences.
When you agreed to the SSA, you agreed in a legally binding contract that you would follow the rules set down by Valve while you used Steam.Steam would not have existed for 20 years if they were breaking the law.

Also Freedom of Speech only extends to US citizens.
Anyone from a different country that doesn't have a FoS in their laws/constitution, it won't apply to them anyway.

[xBCxRangers]

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Цитата допису xBCxRangers:

Well, it is a business, but what sets its apart in regards to Freedom Of Speech issues, as compared to other businesses, in their protection under Title 2. That should be removed as far as Valves possible liabilities.

Which is to say, a business owner can be sued for what happens under their roof. Example would be, they don't let folks with placards protest in their store, being it interrupts business, and if someone is hurt, they're liable.

So should Valve, if they have the ability (and they certainly do) to effectively moderate their fora, they should be sued, if someone is harrassed, or libeled, what not, should hold the bag, on their official and game hub forums.

I'm presuming that'd be Title II Civil Rights Act 1964? I'm unfamiliar with the case law surrounding the US on such matters.

Title 2 wouldn't apply in this legal setting and if it did case law would have had to determine between title 2 and article 18 Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 18

Limitation on use of restrictions on rights
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

Ah, gotcha, Yes, sorry about that, Title 2 is a regulatory matter here in the States, that protects online internet companies from litigation. It obviously does not pertain to the EU, at least that o know of, but would think the EU may have similar regulatory practice.

[Crazy Tiger]

Correct, no such thing as free speech. Freedom of expression doesn't imply freedom of consequence. They can indeed ban you for whatever they want, so to speak. As long as they don't just take away your games without actual reason, they can do that.

If you feel that this isn't correct, you are free to contact your local consumer agency and file a case.

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису HikariLight:

Freedom of Speech is freedom of persecution from the government based on what you say.
It does NOT mean freedom from consequences.
When you agreed to the SSA, you agreed in a legally binding contract that you would follow the rules set down by Valve while you used Steam.Steam would not have existed for 20 years if they were breaking the law.

You don't seem to understand that companies break the law all the time.

Did you read the steam subscriber agreement segment? Did you understand that what you have agreed to in a legally binding contract is exactly that legally binding, the "Rules set down by valve" are clearly defined in the agreement as being governed by domestic law for persons in the UK or EU.

It isn't that hard to follow, but I am procrastinating from doing a few thousand words on CJEU and supranational rulings.

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису Crazy Tiger:

Correct, no such thing as free speech. Freedom of expression doesn't imply freedom of consequence. They can indeed ban you for whatever they want, so to speak. As long as they don't just take away your games without actual reason, they can do that.

If you feel that this isn't correct, you are free to contact your local consumer agency and file a case.

Again I get the feel you're an american. All I would do is file in county court and deal with it as a simple matter of citing UK case law surrounding the matter, again this is merely a place to discuss the matter academically. "they can indeed ban you for whatever they want, so to speak.", simply isn't true from a legal standpoint they can only ban you for a violation of the SSA terms which permit them to do so, otherwise it's entirely a breach of that agreement. Or do you believe the agreement to be binding unilaterally?

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису xBCxRangers:

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

I'm presuming that'd be Title II Civil Rights Act 1964? I'm unfamiliar with the case law surrounding the US on such matters.

Title 2 wouldn't apply in this legal setting and if it did case law would have had to determine between title 2 and article 18 Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 18

Limitation on use of restrictions on rights
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

Ah, gotcha, Yes, sorry about that, Title 2 is a regulatory matter here in the States, that protects online internet companies from litigation. It obviously does not pertain to the EU, at least that o know of, but would think the EU may have similar regulatory practice.

Ah yes, America and it's corporate protectionism again.

[Mad Scientist]

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Yes, this does stem from a ban coming from a community post.

Usually why these threads are made.

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

I'm very curious as to how some people find such ease in saying "NO FREE SPEECH REEE NO INTERNET LAWS BAAD STEAM SET RULES", Steam have set the rules, the rules by which they are bound and with regards to UK and EU based subscribers whom by way of owning an account have a legally binding agreement which includes terms restriction their ability to act outside of laws governed by aforementioned nations.

Valve is a US based company. The EU and UK do not rule the world nor dictate everything to all global companies. Even the USAs FOS does not apply here, it's not a government entity.

This is a privately owned company, they may show anyone the door at any time regardless of what country they are in, if they are disruptive to the service. Developers may moderate their section(s) as they wish. Steam Moderation & Steam Support also give a reason when they make decisions on someones action, so nothing unlawful.

There's no FOS/FOE here. One may have discussions within the general broadly covering steam rules, or the game hub they are within. If they cannot do so or refuse to do so, they may be punished, restricted, removed, or receive account lock/deletion depending on the scenario, which is well within their authority and is fully legal.

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Ah yes, America and it's corporate protectionism again.

Companies are not the Government, therefore FOS/FOE does not apply.

[xBCxRangers]

Цитата допису Mad Scientist:

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Yes, this does stem from a ban coming from a community post.

Usually why these threads are made.

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

I'm very curious as to how some people find such ease in saying "NO FREE SPEECH REEE NO INTERNET LAWS BAAD STEAM SET RULES", Steam have set the rules, the rules by which they are bound and with regards to UK and EU based subscribers whom by way of owning an account have a legally binding agreement which includes terms restriction their ability to act outside of laws governed by aforementioned nations.

Valve is a US based company. The EU and UK do not rule the world nor dictate everything to all global companies. Even the USAs FOS does not apply here, it's not a government entity.

This is a privately owned company, they may show anyone the door at any time regardless of what country they are in, if they are disruptive to the service. Developers may moderate their section(s) as they wish. Steam Moderation & Steam Support also give a reason when they make decisions on someones action, so nothing unlawful.

There's no FOS/FOE here. One may have discussions within the general broadly covering steam rules, or the game hub they are within. If they cannot do so or refuse to do so, they may be punished, restricted, removed, or receive account lock/deletion depending on the scenario, which is well within their authority and is fully legal.

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Ah yes, America and it's corporate protectionism again.

Companies are not the Government, therefore FOS/FOE does not apply.

Right well, the US Government is looking into these online practices, and bi partisan support in reeling them in, for which i'm def in support as well.

And if the govt won't do it, it seems states may.

We need accountability from those who under the guise of "business" and protections thereof, continually skirt our freedoms and consumer rights and protections.

[HikariLight]

Also the 2nd amendment Freedom of Speech does not apply to anyone who is not an American citizen.

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису Mad Scientist:

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Yes, this does stem from a ban coming from a community post.

Usually why these threads are made.

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

I'm very curious as to how some people find such ease in saying "NO FREE SPEECH REEE NO INTERNET LAWS BAAD STEAM SET RULES", Steam have set the rules, the rules by which they are bound and with regards to UK and EU based subscribers whom by way of owning an account have a legally binding agreement which includes terms restriction their ability to act outside of laws governed by aforementioned nations.

Valve is a US based company. The EU and UK do not rule the world nor dictate everything to all global companies. Even the USAs FOS does not apply here, it's not a government entity.

This is a privately owned company, they may show anyone the door at any time regardless of what country they are in, if they are disruptive to the service. Developers may moderate their section(s) as they wish. Steam Moderation & Steam Support also give a reason when they make decisions on someones action, so nothing unlawful.

There's no FOS/FOE here. One may have discussions within the general broadly covering steam rules, or the game hub they are within. If they cannot do so or refuse to do so, they may be punished, restricted, removed, or receive account lock/deletion depending on the scenario, which is well within their authority and is fully legal.

Цитата допису 57th Liam:

Ah yes, America and it's corporate protectionism again.

Companies are not the Government, therefore FOS/FOE does not apply.

Do you have anything to assert you claim other than your nonsense? Can you cite me where within the steam subscriber agreement that it claims such. Can you point to any actual laws which would be governed under section 10 of the steam subscriber agreement that actually support you? Do you have any laws for reference? See kiddo this isn't a matter or a place to come and make such assertions without backing it up.

"If they cannot do so or refuse to do so, they may be punished, restricted, removed, or receive account lock/deletion depending on the scenario, which is well within their authority and is fully legal." How could it be legal when the steam subscriber agreement would make it a breach of a legally binding agreement, it's inherently and circularly unlawful on a civil basis.

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису xBCxRangers:

Цитата допису Mad Scientist:

Usually why these threads are made.


Valve is a US based company. The EU and UK do not rule the world nor dictate everything to all global companies. Even the USAs FOS does not apply here, it's not a government entity.

This is a privately owned company, they may show anyone the door at any time regardless of what country they are in, if they are disruptive to the service. Developers may moderate their section(s) as they wish. Steam Moderation & Steam Support also give a reason when they make decisions on someones action, so nothing unlawful.

There's no FOS/FOE here. One may have discussions within the general broadly covering steam rules, or the game hub they are within. If they cannot do so or refuse to do so, they may be punished, restricted, removed, or receive account lock/deletion depending on the scenario, which is well within their authority and is fully legal.


Companies are not the Government, therefore FOS/FOE does not apply.

Right well, the US Government is looking into these online practices, and bi partisan support in reeling them in, for which i'm def in support as well.

And if the govt won't do it, it seems states may.

We need accountability from those who under the guise of "business" and protections thereof, continually skirt out freedoms and consumer rights.

Oh for sure, an what cracks me up is these kids chime in with "YOU HAVE NO FREESPEECH REEEE" without actually understanding a damn thing about the law or how to read a basic statute. I'd love to see something pass in the US regarding the issue for sure. This is what's nice you get to learn about other countries rules and regs and looking at the SSA the ♥♥♥♥ US residents have to go through to even initiate a dispute is ridiculous.

[xBCxRangers]

Цитата допису HikariLight:

Also the 2nd amendment Freedom of Speech does not apply to anyone who is not an American citizen.

1st Amendment dude lol. But yes, different governments regulate differently.

[[57th] Chloe]

Цитата допису HikariLight:

Also the 2nd amendment Freedom of Speech does not apply to anyone who is not an American citizen.

You really only have one brain cell don't you, I'd suggest you go back reread my post. I specifically included in it the reference to section 10 of the steam subscriber agreement even quoting the relevant area of law below it, go up have a reread and consider the question of why are you even replying to this?