Should the "Impeach Bush" Guy's freedom of expression be surpressed/censored?

The ones I remember seeing were.

The Impeach Bush signs in no way fall under the definition of hate speech as the signs are demanding the removal of someone from office because of their actions.

So you are saying that we should not be allowed to charge what we want for property? How do you decide what its a fair price and what is excessive?

Jake, try this:

A. We should be able to charge what we want for our property.

B. We should be able to put up political signs of free speech on our property.

Those two statements can hold true.
They do not necessarily, however, lead to the following conclusion:

C. We should be able to put up political signs of free speech by the hundreds all over the grid, on tiny lots, right in front of people's houses, for exhorbitant prices, all listed for sale in Find, and while we are at it, harass any individual who doesn't like it.

In other words, one can hold "C" without disavowing "A" and "B".

coco

So you are saying that we should not be allowed to charge what we want for property? How do you decide what its a fair price and what is excessive?

5. EXCESSIVE PRICING

Perhaps the most obvious form of abuse of dominant position is where the enterprise concerned charges excessively high selling prices or extracts excessively low buying prices. An "excessive price", in this instance, may be defined as a price that has no reasonable relation to the economic value of a product or service. Prices in a particular market can be regarded as excessive if they allow the dominant firm to sustain profits that are appreciably higher than it could expect to earn in a competitive market. A determination of excessively high selling prices, for example, would take into consideration both operating and capital expenditure, including an allowance for a reasonable rate of return to investors, shareholders and lenders of the business. Other factors that may be taken into account in an assessment of excessive pricing would be the prices of similar competing products or the price at which the same product is being sold in another market, for example, the export market as compared to the domestic market.

How much price increase is exorbitant? Would that mean that people that list their land for sale at $9,999,999 for a 512m2 would be in violation of this new rule?

Consumer Protection: Price Fraud
Dr. Itamar Warhaftig
[...]
A. Definition

After discussing various opinions. the Talmud (BM 50b) concludes: "Rava said: The law is that less than a sixth, the sale is binding; more than a sixth. the sale is cancelled; a sixth, the sale is binding and the fraud is refunded."3 There are two assumptions at the base of this law. Firstly, there exists a standard market price from which the sale price deviated by a sixth or more. Secondly, the victim was not aware of the fraud and therefore it cannot be claimed that he waived or agreed to pay more than the market price.

Less then a sixth: The sale is binding. The differential is small, and it may be assumed that it is waived by the buyer. (In this article, we assume that the seller is committing the fraud and the buyer is the victim, although, as was stated at the outset, legally there is no difference between fraud by the seller or by the buyer.) The Ramban (Commentary to the Torah, Lev. loc.cit.) maintains that even though the buyer is presumed to have waived the fraud and is therefore not entitled to a refund, the seller has transgressed a prohibition. The Chinuch (337) states that it is permissible to charge up to one sixth more than the market price, "so that the necessities of men will be available." The Rosh (BM 4.20) is undecided on this question. and rules that "one who fears God will fulfill both opinions." In the Shulchan Aruch (ChM 227,6), both opinions are quoted without a decision. The Bach prohibits overcharging by even less than a sixth. The Sma apparently maintains that if one did so, it is proper to return it, although the buyer does not have the right to sue.

Exactly a sixth: The sale is binding and the fraud must be refunded. Most authorities maintain that the buyer cannot cancel the transaction, but is only entitled to a refund of the excessive payment. Rabbenu Tam (Tosafot. BM 50b, s.v. "Amar" contends that the buyer has the option of demanding a refund of the excess or a cancellation of the transaction, but his opinion is not accepted. We shall consider the explanation of this law below.

More than a sixth: The sale is cancelled. A discrepancy of this magnitude is equivalent to a fraud in the object itself.

Is the cancellation a right of the buyer alone. or can the seller also cancel the sale in this case? Can the buyer obtain the refund of the excessive payment without cancelling the transaction? There are four opinions dn this matter.

1) The Tosafot (BM 50b. s.v. "Ve-ilu" states that it is the equivalent of the sale of wine which turns out to be vinegar. which is automatically abrogated, and both parties may initiate the cancellation.

2) The Rosh quotes Rabbenu Yona, who maintains that if the buyer has not yet explicitly accepted the fraud, or if the time period for cancelling the sale has not been exceeded (see below), the seller may cancel. Once the buyer waives his rights and accepts the sale as is, the seller cannot cancel unilaterally. The Rama cites this opinion in the Shulchan Aruch (227,4).

3) The Rivam (Tosafot, ad.loc.) contends that the seller never has the right of cancellation. However, if the buyer demands the return of the excessive amount alone, the seller can force the cancellation of the sale.

4) The Ramma (Yad Ramma, BB 83b) claims that even the buyer cannot cancel the sale outright, but must initially demand the refund of the excessive payment. Only if the seller refuses to refund the amount of the fraud can the buyer cancel the transaction.

Support Prop 905! All else is drama.

How come problems, definitions already solved in RL (like excessive pricing) have to be such a hard thing to convert to SL?

I like this proposition! Though it's not perfect either... I'm still gonna see 500 bush signs all over the grid, until i filter them one by one

I think we always get back to the same point: it's very hard to solve a non-techincal problem with only technical means.

How come problems, definitions already solved in RL (like excessive pricing) have to be such a hard thing to convert to SL?

These threads are completely shitting up the forum. One or two would be enough.

Ok, so the "tons" of situations where this happened before are the Ansche Chung situation and the Support Bush signs? Two examples does not constitute a "ton". Also, did Ansche put up huge builds that were nearly impossible to block from your view on your property, or are you referring to the very short signs she has up on her lots that are for sale now? If you're referring to her current builds, then it's not the same thing at all.

That is exactly what I've been wondering. As far as I know, most cities in the US have a lot of restrictions on what you can put on private property. Price gouging is also controlled to an extent by the government in the US. I don't think that SL should have as many restrictions on these things as we have in the real world, but what would be wrong with limiting the height of signs with political messages in SL?

Well, I have to admit, after only 5 minute of googling maybe a not-perfectly relevant text came up, but here goes (it's about excessive pricing, there IS such a thing in RL):

Without reference to where it comes from, I have no idea what you are saying. As an economic conceptexcessive pricing does exist, how ever as a legal offense it does not except in some specific circumstances. Not excessiv price my be a factor in determining the unconscionablitity of a contract, but price, by itself is not an indicator. You can freely contract to sell land at ten times the market value, as long as both parties know what they are getting and no misrrepresentation is made.

How come problems, definitions already solved in RL (like excessive pricing) have to be such a hard thing to convert to SL?

If this is the case, wouldn't a solution be to pretend that the land isn't for sale?

Y'all keep missing the forest for the trees.

In fact, y'all keep insisting there IS no forest! And can never be a forest!

If and when Lindens decide to see this as a forest, they will act. Because the Lindens ARE the government.

coco

Y'all keep missing the forest for the trees.

In fact, y'all keep insisting there IS no forest! And can never be a forest!

If and when Lindens decide to see this as a forest, they will act. Because the Lindens ARE the government.

coco