Should free speech be allowed in MMORPG??

"Heavy Price for Free Speech"
Wired News (11/02/04); Terdiman, Daniel
Determining the degree to which players of online role-playing games should be permitted to exercise their rights to free speech and expression was a topic of discussion among a panel of legal and academic experts at the second State of Play conference. Frederick Schauer of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Second Life Herald author Peter Ludlow, and Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin contemplated whether massively multiplayer online game developers could be found legally liable for allowing antisocial behavior among players, and what operating policies the developers should establish to shield themselves from such litigation. Schauer disputed the common view among players that speech is an assumed right in virtual worlds, noting that it is predicated on a traditional American perception of liberty that does not align well with game space; he also noted that some game participants hail from countries where free-speech rights are not as rigidly protected as in the United States, especially when confronted with "issues of libel and slander, issues of invasion of privacy, hate speech, racial hatred, incitement to violence and incitement to various forms of crime." Balkin argued that game developers must consider four basic issues in relation to free speech: The possibility of government regulation of free speech; commercial game operators shielding themselves with the First Amendment in an effort to avoid regulation; concerns that in-world speech could fuel disputes and even legal action; and operators' incentive to censor speech and write rules sanctioning censorship into their terms of service. To guard against legal attacks, Balkin proposed interation, a setup in which game companies choose terms of service from among a series of models that are then presented at a game's launch so players would have a clear idea of speech allowances and restrictions.
Click Here for Full Article