Freedom of Speech

I've heard it thrown around here by people in some places...This has to be a given or nothing can be.

I've read one person seriously say something to the effect that freedom of speech is the rule but with exceptions. An idiotic statement at best. Then I come here to see threads deleted due to words and feelings...thats bullshit. ANyone and everyone was supposed to be free to join...if you don't like the platformn or words then dont listen or look.

Sure none of us want to hear a pedophile, kkk member, skinhead, arian asshole, and or any asshole racist speak...but freedom of speech is always a measure put in place to protect the individual...I don't believe in what a lot of people say but I would DIE to protect their right to say it. because if I didn't when it came time for me to have my say there might not be anyoine left to hear me.

Our fundamental goal is to meet Haney Linden's challenge of preserving the snow sims while creating a compelling destination for all members of SL. It is our responsibility to meet this challenge. Our second responsibility is to all members of the group to make sure that the project is engaging, creative, fun, and safe.

There is absolutely nothing about Ace Cassidy calling our group "a bunch of pussies" and "overly constipated fools" which contributes to our goals. It is antithetical to the spirit of collaboration, camaraderie, and equality on which this project is founded. Frankly, I'm astounded you're defending what was obviously a troll with such vigor.


I would also like to say that the concept of freedom of speech was created to guarantee that those who disapproved of the U.S. government could be free to speak out against that government without ramifications. I loathe to see it used among U.S. citizens as an absolution for unethical behavior such as verbal assault, name calling, and hate speech.

But let's not spend time debating the issue, as it's already covered in the Linden Forum Guidelines:
As moderator of this forum, I deleted a thread that contained personal attacks and insults on all members of this group, as I am allowed to within the guidelines posted by the Lindens.

I'm flexible though. If you all would like me to leave trolls and threads with abusive verbal content posted by individuals who aren't in our group in the group forum, let me know. I will respect your wishes.

~Ulrika~

I for one, am all in favorite of you deleting abusive and destrucutive posting.

I read these forums at work and it would be sad if the choice offensive words of a few stopped me from doing that.

I also think Neualtenburg project is greater than the individual and I chuckle at those who think this whole project is about "the individual"

I understand where your coming from Ulrika. Sometimes things are said that aren't pleasant or what we want to hear...but if we erase those times then we are only choosing to ignore something that still remains.

Trolls and or abusive verbal content usually show themselves for what they are...I'd rather a troll run himself into the ground and look like an asshat to all then erase the trolls existence so he can come back and say I win. Eventually a troll will tire when they see that they can't get to us and will either leave or become interested in what we're doing

I'd rather show those that don't like what we're doing that we're accepting of their position no matter how poorly they choose to show it to us ...because maybe they'll take a second to understand ours in the process.

Tho', I personally found Ace's approach to the Costume Party to be rude, and have conversed with him in his thread about it, I don't think he's aiming any higher than being Groucho Marx to our Margaret DuMont.

I'm not positive it would be bad to have someone around who keeps us from getting too serious so we can laugh and enjoy ourselves as well.

I'm actually not positive that Ace is funny enough to that --and I challenge him to come up with a sillier hat then the chicken hat.

What I WON'T tolerate, however, is rude insults at other members of our group, or political parties whose sole aim is to destroy the city out of some misplaced sense of duty to chaos as the sole arbiter of what freedom means.

I have publicly apologized for past insensitive remarks in the "Costume Party..." thread. I'll repeat that here if necessary.

I have offered to provide land tier to the group to further the goals of the city, and now paitently await the decision on my application for citizenship.

- Ace

We have to manually censor the trolling and offensive posts because this forum system is very basic. Modern forums allow users to rate the quality of thread response and you can set your view by ratings. Trolling has been a problem since the creation of the online messege board and the only solution using a simple forum like this is to delete the offensive posts.

There is no aplication...find the group in world and join I believe

There was no join button that I could find. I asked Ulrika for an invite, and was told that a public apology was a pre-condition to my citizenship. I am awaiting her reply.

- Ace

Censorship is EVIL .



The above is the perception that people will have when things are deleted and or censored.

You can't have a true community if you wish to silence someone because they don't fit into your mold.

If this is true I am outraged that any conditions are being put on citizenship. I would also call that the group be listed as free to join not invite only. Ace I can't apologize for the group but I personally apologize and will do what I can to correct this.

I would refer you to the article for the Constitution that I proposed in Neualtenberg Constitution thread. Its a simple one...

Proposed Article : Citizenship in Neualtenberg shall be open to all

- Ace

Freedom of speech isn't something that you can just pay lip service to when it conveniently is on your side. Freedom of speech should apply to everyone whether we like what they say or not.

The offensive words could have just as easily been deleted with a note explaining the context of why it was edited. To delete the entire thread is against the basic foundation of freedom of speech that I witnessed you all so passionately defending with regard to your anti-Bush rally. Why are you not just as passionate about it now?

I for one would like for this "group" to act like a "group", making "group" decisions after all parties involved have had the opportunity to express their opinions. As a consequence of the deletion the new thread that is now on the general forums is certainly shining a very negative light on us all.

You either have freedom of speech or you do not. There is NO middle ground.

After a very long discussion over dinner with my resident philosopher, I have put together a general philosophy, which I'll apply to the project from now on and codify in the Constitution. Our city will support complete "Freedom of Expression" as long as it does not violate the autonomy (freedom) of other individuals.

This is based on the philosophy that individuals are only allowed their freedom, if it does not interfere with the freedoms of others.

Concrete examples of forms of expression that will not be protected are personal insults, hate speech, and griefing. All are forms of expression which are abusive, defamitory, or injurious to other people. Being inconvenienced or hearing things that are contrary to one's personal opinion is not classified as a violation of autonomy.


Here are some examples pulled from recent city and SL events.

One may engage in any form of protest, as long as that protest does not interfere with or hurt other individuals. (Being inconvenienced or hearing things that are contrary to one's personal opinion is not classified as a violation of autonomy.) People will be allowed to protest all forms of RL and SL government without approval. However, people will not be allowed to interfere with or grief city events.

One may post whatever they want to the forums. However, those posts may not contain personal insults or defamatory remarks.

One may form any faction they want in the city. However, this faction may not harm the society as a whole with a malicious or frivolous platform.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika. you had me up to this last point.

I would like to hear legal definitions - concrete, at least - of the words "harm" and "malicious" and "frivolous" - or even "society" in this context.

If I form a group that endeavors to replace the government of the city with one I think is better for the city, does this point prohibit that group from forming?

Oh. In case anyone is fuzzy on my view of censorship (LOL), let me say this: any modification of another person's speech is a distortion of the Truth.

That is a Bad Thing.

Oh my yes. It's absolutely sticky isn't it? Can't we all see such a line in a constitution being used for censorship and the elimination of threatening minority parties? Yet at the same time in a socialist government that seeks to optimize return to the society, while respecting the rights of the individual, is it acceptable to allow parties which would destroy the society to rise to power?

I think the answer is to codify the philosophy in the constitution with the statement that intervention is only possible in the event of clear and present danger and leave the Philosophic branch with the power to address threats from within the Representative branch by hearing on a case-by-case basis.

How do you feel about that?

~Ulrika~

A big problem with the initial design of the constitution might be the allure of intraconstitutional legislation. I think the best thing to do is to create a strong bill of rights, place that as the primary document, add a document outlining the purpose and structure of the government, and then call it a day. If we are clear enough in the Principles, and careful enough forming the Legislature and it's balance, then I'm sure they'll create whatever laws governing assembly they feel might be required.

In the case of Constitutions, less is much better. As in Tao #59, ruling a nation is like frying a small fish.

Well, I have quoted it before, but I will quote again the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which almost every western country in the world subscribes.

On the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, it simply states:



Note the "right to freedom of peaceful assembly". This means that rioting, mobbing, or any other form of violent association may not be allowed (I fully agree with that view).

However, please carefully note the final article:



That is, all Bills of Rights or Constitutional documents should, as a measure of self-protection, have a closing article stating precisely this: all rights given on the constitution/bill of rights cannot be interpreted as enabling people to go against those same rights!

This states it clearly to me: I have the right to express my freedom of thought, so far as I don't violate any other right. I may form parties and assemblies and associations to proclaim my ideas, so far as they are "peaceful" (ie. not disturbing the law and order), and are not created with the purpose of destroying any other rights/freedoms I have been granted (ie. Griefer Parties are out).

If it works for the UN, it works for me. I propose we include the UN Declaration of Human Rights in our own Constitution, as it's the common practice of all Constitutions written (or amended) since the 1950's. We need to tweak a few articles (the ones related to "family", "right to health care", which may not apply), but not much more.

Note: this does not mean that we should not have any constitution; it only means that we only need to add other articles for our specific differences (ie. Government organization, Citizenship, etc.), but we can overlook the Bill of Rights entirely. Usually, in the part of the Constitution describing the fundamental rights and duties, something should be stated like "The Constitution of Neualtenburg fully embraces the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights for all constitutional and legal matters pertaining to the assurance of fundamental rights, and they should be interpreted accordingly." Also note that we obviously need to put an article saying that ToS and the Community Standards as set up by the Lindens are appliable as well.

Here goes one article by Daniel Terdiman, my favourite Wired journalist (well, just because he usually reports on Second Life and answers all emails ):

Heavy price for Free Speech

The issue is not an easy one to solve. The journalist tends to believe that things could get nasty, but under the umbrella of US law, you could in theory solve disputes offworld. However, it seems that the best attitude of company owners of online games should best avoid legal matters entirely.

As you know, Philip has been trying to figure out "inworld disputes" settled by the residents (ie. trying to get Lindens away from it). In Neualtenburg, this will be certainly addressed by us.

Once again you impress me Gwynith. I agree with everything you say here.

This makes a lot of sense Kathy! I do believe personally that our Bill of Rights is going to be an even more important document than our Constitution. Though both should be made so that neither is good without the other.

I also assume that with different terms (so different people in different seats), won't new laws come about, and possibly some older laws be removed (possibly to be added again later during another term)? I would think that if we make our Constitution and Bill of Rights strong enough, then the ups and downs of the current laws will not allow for a total destruction of the projekt.



Very interesting article Gwyneth! Thank you for posting the link.

I say we establish a police state. There should be a 6PM (PST) curfew, and loudspeakers that tell us we are happy people.