Ban me?

Didn't they teach you about intent at lawyer school?

Hmm, have to wonder about the new resident who is a male who also wants to wear women's underwear. Wouldn't that make him think "Yay! I found my people! Sign me up for life!"... right up until he sees the other guy get reported and banned for the same?

I don't think that's really the point. If I walked in to the WA as a male, wearing women's lingerie, and several people asked me to put on something else, I'd be obligated to do so.

Unless I missed something, it's not socially acceptable for a man to wear women's underwear in public. Technically, it's not socially acceptable for a woman to wear underwear in public either, but as we've already said: a swim suit is more revealing than most lingerie is.

I can't walk down the street in jockey shorts, but I can in a speedo.
A girl can't walk down the street in a bra and panties, but she can in a bikini.

Yes, it's a paradox. But that's life. Nobody said that there's anything rational about obscenity. Something is offensive when someone's offended. It's that simple. We should respect that in any PG sim, especially in the WA. However, there's also a diference between "inappropriate" and "abuse". ARing someone for dressing like that is stupid, unless he was acting like a jerk.

On the other hand, from what I gathered, this guy was being rude, was warned, continued to be rude, and then was reported. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

From my understanding of the situation, he was not banned from the WA, he was warned repeatedly and given a suspension. Again, as Enabran said, intent is the key, not nitpicking on one specific aspect of his dress.

Also, "your world, your imagination" is a great marketing slogan, but if it were to be universally applied to every single situation as a rule written in stone, then the concentration camp builds would stay and LL couldn't touch them. If you're all for ultimate and complete freedom of expression, that's fine - I generally lean the same way - but its not good business sense on LL's part.

The difference between the WA and the rest of the grid is that the rest of the grid is resident owned (or rented) and is the residents' responsibility. If you're going to walk into someone else's house and complain about what they have on, then that's your problem and not theirs. The WA is for all intents and purposes Linden Lab's land where they welcome new customers to their business, and as such, they have every right to say what is and isn't acceptable there.

Also, you guys are missing the fact that it wasn't just that he was wearing women's lingerie, he had a lewd animation going on too.

hmm. the internet is


business?

I disagree.. Myself if the lingerie was overly revealing it would cross my mind that it shouldn't be going on, especially in the welcome area..

Thinking about it, on a woman I have a feeling it'd be worse.. I don't know what the rules are, but having a man topless in a PG sim I wouldn't really think about it, you see it all the time.. A woman however.. You don't see it quite so often and I think it would qualify as a higher level of nudity.. But like I said I don't know the rules..

Of course they do. As well as free speech.

Sometimes intent does not matter.
Sometimes intent forms the basis of the crime.

Sometimes speeech is criminal, sometimes it is obscene and sometimes it is merely offensive.

However they also teach this thing called equal protection, and while cross dressing is not yet a constitutionaly protected class, nevertheless to ban someone for being a cross dresser, or to imply they are somehow offensive for being male and wearing womens clothing violates what if fell was the intent of the constitution and what should be a fundamental part of society, even corporate ones.

If you take a moment to read my post, I did say that I took no position as to the conduct of the original poster, because I do not now what it was.

If you tell me that he violated the TOS, or was being rude or offensive in some other way, apart from his clothes, then I can imagine his being banned was justifiable. If you tell me his attire was revealing in a x-rated fashion, or offere a see through view of his Tallywhacker (gotta luv Porky's), then I might say it was obscene and he should be banned. But if he was stading there in a hot pink string bikini, and is only being banned for being a guy wearing girls clothes, then I say shame on you and shame on us all.

I think there is an obvious difference between a concentration camp build and a guy in a dress. I mean furries offend some people, but I think we would all be shocked if we banned resident from the WA for being a wolf or a duck or a fox or something.

Again, from what I can determine, the person in question was suspended, not banned.

After being told to quit doing what he was doing, which was apparently a lot more than just the clothing issue.

The difference between concentration camp build and a guy in a dress is obvious to us, but not to someone who is intent on causing grief or trying to be a smartass, toeing the line. Using the "your world your imagination" slogan as a rule to cover everything is what I took issue with in your statement. After all, a concentration camp is probably part of someone's imagination.

I sincerely doubt that LL would ban or even suspend someone who's only crime was being a male av in women's underwear in the WA. However, it is essentially the lobby to their business, and I can't fault them for deciding that certain dress is appropriate or not.

I may not have been clear: I was not suggesting that this users conduct did not ju8stify the suspension, nor would I take exception to the exclusion of a man wearing a see through bikini. In each instance there are substantive grounds for the banning. However, the section I originally quoted seemed to stand for the notion that it was in appropriate for a man to wear women clothing in the welcome area. Frankly I very much doubt this sort of thinking is in the spirit of the lindens business policy. "Your world, your imagination" is a defining principal of second life. It is the preamble by which the TOS is interpreted. No it does not justify concentration camp builds. These violate the TOS policy on intolerance.

My point is that being intolerant of someone who expresses themselves as a cross dresser, also violates the TOS. If this person coducted themselves in such a way as to violate the TOS or the rules relating to nudity in a PG sim then they should be suspended. Merely wearing a womn's bikini, or bra and panties, does not rise to that level.

I see that you started another thread to address the specific question of crossdressing in the WA, so I'll leave that part aside - as I already stated that I don't believe that LL would (or should) suspend someone for the sole activity of wearing the opposite gender's clothing in the WA.

As far as using "Your world, your imagination" as "the preamble by which the TOS is interpreted" - I'd have to take issue with that as well. As far as I can tell, its a marketing slogan and nothing more. There was another thread last week or so that dissected those four words to death - I honestly find it remarkable that this phrase is being subjected to such literal translation. Who harps on GE for their slogan "We bring good things to life"? They've never created a sentient washing machine, after all.

Anyhoo, I still stand by my opinion that the WA is Linden Lab's virtual lobby for their new clients, and as such, I cannot begrudge them the right to determine what is acceptable and what isn't in that area.

I agree. It's become nigh on ridiculous how people hang on that slogan.

First, it IS marketing, as Cory stated. Second, it's subject to personal interpretation. It's not some sort of axiom intended to be used to define what side of a debate is the "correct" one to be on, precisely because of the subjectivity of personal interpretations.

It's seems that many times, when someone has a beef about SL, they draw upon that slogan as some sort of proof that their perceived oppression is tangible.