I am an idiot, not a lawyer. However, even an idiot can tell you when stupidity comes in contact with the law; as Nintendo now has the precedent set to destroy consumer rights in Germany and possibly elsewhere. I do know a couple of lawyers and those who are going through schooling to become lawyers, precedent is key for any case as I’ve both been told and had to remind those friends in some cases. In the UK and Europe as a whole, it is illegal to refuse a refund until 28 days have elapsed. Nintendo now has the precedent set up that can refuse such a right for pre-loaded digital games. In the UK those laws include digital sales.

That has little to do with what we’re talking about today. I just wanted to point out while everyone showers Nintendo with praise for their own nostalgia, they aren’t abiding the law at the same time. However, today’s case is to do with another legal case that could show precedence, finally, for the digital age. Most legal systems are stuck in the 20th century with little of a podium for anyone online to stand on and provide those online with a safe hill to die on. Let’s not even start talking about every legal stress Google and YouTube put on creators with every small change they make.

You can’t talk about “freedom of speech” without anyone getting upset that you’re right. Example: someone makes a joke with race, even if your intent is to prove the vexed person’s point, the focus is that race is in the conversation. On the other hand, when pointing out someone is being a racist, transphobe, or anything else when they are all the characteristics with the intent of harm, said “freedom” is used for both arguments. For the latter, it is that the speech is allowed because of that right, while on the other side of the same argument it is said that with such freedom is afforded to those accusing others of racism. Personally, I don’t care.

You see, in the UK you are provided “freedom of speech,” but with a caveat I like. In the UK you are allowed to say what you like but aren’t allowed to say it with the intent of harm towards those of minorities. In some cases, this is used well and it does some good, on the other hand, it does delude some into the idea that you aren’t allowed to talk about race. You are allowed to, you just are not allowed to use racial slurs. It is under the precedent that you are attempting a hate crime for being derogatory towards race, religion, creed, or disability. To counter the other argument there is defamation, libel, and slander which is that anything published must be factual.

So with that, laws aren’t entirely up to date yet with the concept of the internet. One thing that some have taken umbrage with since the invention of the “block button” and “mute button” is that they are being silenced. I’ve never understood this, you are still allowed to yell into the void as you like, we just don’t have to hear your useless and inane nonsense anymore if we don’t want to. This is something a RuneScape player had taken offense to since his account was “muted” by the game’s creators, Jagex. It is a pitiful case that once again feels like a stupid case clashing with the law.

Player Amro A. Elansari, going by the name “The420Streamer,” claims in a handwritten note of his so-called injuries to the Pennsylvania court as “violation of due process[,] discrimination/free speech[, and] human rights.” His desired resolution is “Whatever the jury sees fit. + [sic] remove the mute on [the] plaintiff’s account.” Mr. Elansari, on his personal Twitter account, @AmroElansari, stated “Suspended From Penn State Law,” which he claims is for “legalizing pot.” While Elansari states such, the only on record arrest for marijuana of Elansari was at a graduation ceremony at Bloomsburg Univerisity.

However, this is not the first case brought to court by Elansari on behalf of himself, he submitted a case last July with the district court and then again in appeals in October against the dating app, Tinder. In the case, he claims the app sends you notifications showing prospect matches and you can see them if you pay Tinder Inc $15 per month, he goes on to say “they’re all fake 3000 miles away.” The court opted to throw the case out as he is not an attorney and therefore can’t pursue a “pro se” case, translated from Latin meaning to defend one’s self. Elansari has done this several times and is known as a “serial litigator.”

Once again, Elansari filed his case against the British developer of the game RuneScape and claimed to have some “2000 hours invested” into the game. When Elansari was muted he sought to appeal the developer’s decision, however, Jagex Inc refused to and did not provide him with a reason for the decision. As already said he requested “Whatever the jury sees fit,” when he tried to bring this to court. Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S. eastern district court did allow Elansari to pursue the case in an “in forma pauperis” manner, meaning one can pursue a case in lieu of legal fees paid.

Soon after the case began, Judge Kearney saw no reason to continue as Elansari did not provide sufficient and plausible evidence of his constitutional rights being revoked. The case was thrown out. This led to Elansari then going on to try the case in the third circuit appeals court this past week, which was also promptly ended when Elansari could not provide evidence that he was denied access to the game. Elansari for most of the case attempted to file the complaint under discrimination towards him and those of his country because of Jagex and their Shanghai-based owners Fukong Interactive Entertainment muting him from sections of the game.

Using the first and fourteenth amendments respectively as a broad reason for his claim. Neither of these applies against Jagex or Fukong as the first amendment states the U.S. government can’t effectively “mute” a citizen, however, a private entity is not held to this same law. The fourteenth amendment requires that all citizens are treated equally, giving each citizen the chance for due process by the U.S government. As neither claims fit the definitions of either amendment’s purpose Elansari can’t pursue the claim that he was either discriminated against or that his free speech was violated by either company.

Given Elansari’s history of cases being brought against companies with high profiles, I would guess this is not to be the last. In research for this article, we found that Elansari filed four cases including the Tinder and Jagex cases in July alone, one of which is with the University of Pennsylvania for having to complete a survey to receive his phone from a campus charging station locker. Another case in 2019 was against the electronics store Best Buy as he went in with the desire to buy one thing and bought something else instead as the former wasn’t available, something he admits he used for 30+ days.

Looking into some of the cases and Elansari himself, I can understand the faulty product issue with Best Buy and his desire to legalize marijuana (for personal use). However, there is a large difference between his desires and approach. The approach is seemingly for all or nothing in pursuit of getting the case heard by you or I, his desire seems to be for common sense to rule.

Phenixx Gaming is everywhere you are. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.