Increased Harassment towards members of Dev Team
https://twitter.com/Battlefield/status/1657017752811450372
Forum Discussion
@fragnstein wrote:While some of those restrictions are valid, some are not and what some would agree to violate our constitutional rights of freedom of speech by restricting us from fully express our opinions on open public platforms..
Freedom of speech is a freedom from government retaliation to speech and even that freedom only extends up to the point of causing harm. Private companies like EA are free to censor/punish speech as they please within their power.
As a business I expect that EA has the right to refuse service (assuming they aren't basing the refusal on one of the protected classes).
But then none of us are legal experts. We can only speculate at the legal risks here. However as a company of 10k+ people I'd imagine EA has a more than a few legal experts - specifically legal experts in the field of video games - that would have been available to weigh in on this. Most large corporations are hyper sensitive legal risks. If there's even a whiff of legal risk then you need to run it by the legal department. No idea if that happened in this case, but my guess is that they did and it got a green light.
@AngrySquid270 wrote:
@fragnstein wrote:While some of those restrictions are valid, some are not and what some would agree to violate our constitutional rights of freedom of speech by restricting us from fully express our opinions on open public platforms..
Freedom of speech is a freedom from government retaliation to speech and even that freedom only extends up to the point of causing harm. Private companies like EA are free to censor/punish speech as they please within their power.
As a business I expect that EA has the right to refuse service (assuming they aren't basing the refusal on one of the protected classes).
But then none of us are legal experts. We can only speculate at the legal risks here. However as a company of 10k+ people I'd imagine EA has a more than a few legal experts - specifically legal experts in the field of video games - that would have been available to weigh in on this. Most large corporations are hyper sensitive legal risks. If there's even a whiff of legal risk then you need to run it by the legal department. No idea if that happened in this case, but my guess is that they did and it got a green light.
It amazes me how many people don't have a basic understanding of the 1st amendment. Thanks for the post, I was about to post the same.
