The Right to Virtually Assemble

John Scalzi (who evidently writes a column in OPM twice a month) poses the topic on his Whatever web column: The Right to Virtually Assemble.

But I think there's also an interesting wrinkle in the first amendment argument for video games that I'd like to toss out there for comment and criticism (which, of course, I'll use for background in my next OPM column). So far all the arguments for first amendment protection for video games is founded on freedom of speech from governmental intervention. But what about freedom of peaceable assembly?

The debate is an offshoot of his original articles about the First Amendment and how they apply to video-games (and the ongoing case against the First Amendment applying to video games). His peronal web-column is typically devoid of video-game topics, so this is a rare chance to take a gander at a great writer's take on the legality of video-games.

Comments

[justin]

This is important wondering. Someone playing on There.com pointed out that the efforts of activists "Polygons for Peace" were limited by social levelling in There, where you have to play the game and earn buddies before you are allowed to have large groups of people. So this friend gets a note from Polygons for Peace announcing that the leader has earned a higher level, "veteran socializer" so more people can appear in There to protest the war.

[misuba]

> you have to play the game and earn buddies before you are allowed to have large groups of people.

That's either incredibly dumb or incredibly brilliant. I'd sign up and check, but apparently, PCs with the system requirements for There haven't been invented yet.

[hyhy]

mp3 mp3 nokia nokia mp4 nec amr midi mid cect mmf lg tcl av