Right to a Free Press

Right to a Free Press

The right to a free press is empty when there is no actual media by which speech may be presented; since non-chat speech in Second Life is realized in the form of scripts, textures, media urls, and texture urls which reside in prims, those who use the continuous inworld presence of prims to support speech must make available a portion of their prim allotment for use by others for the presentation of alternate or additional views sufficient to allow all who wish to do so to speak.

I disagree with this as well. That's not free press. Making someone use their resources for something they do not want is NOT FREE.

The right of the govenment to compel media distributers to distribute media against their wishes is a long established part of American law. It is considered by some to be the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to "the golden rule". This proposal simply extends into Second Life rights to a free press which are enjoyed by people in one form or another in most countries of the world, much as the Propostion 407, Bill of Rights does.

So what's your point? It sounds a little like you expect LL to provide the means to spread your ideas. That's like expecting the government to supply the newspapers with a building, ink, presses, paper and vending machines to sell them in.

Ok first the arguement is based on American law. Other countries that have internet access do not have such rights. If you can provide legal sources of such laws in multiple countries that have internet access then I could see that being an arguement but the law to my knowledge has not and cannot be enforced online.

Huh? Maybe I'm a little dense, but I'm not understanding this at all.

Right to a free press? Given anyone can write a notecard and a simple repeater to spread them, isn't that free and low-tech enough? Even with my skill at scripting, I resort to simple "Find Profile > Pass Note" for most of what I pass around.

If the ability to put forth one's ideas on notecards satisfied people's perceived need for more protection for their right to free speech then why is there such concern for freedom of speech in the forums when notecards can be used if one's forum rights are revoked?

Why? Because the two types of media are different. Notecards are available to all, but HTML on prims takes prims, permanent inworld prims means land ownership. There can thus be no "free speech" in the absence of community control of the media because in the absence of government control the landed will have disproportionate control of the means of persuasion and the landless will be left out in the cold as the poor and disenfranchised have been throughout history. The provision of freedom is the function of government; surely one cannot justify leaving control of the means of persuasion in the hands of unregulated businessmen and landowners and expect they will provide a forum for the promotion of the needs of the unlanded majority when those interests conflict with the desires of the wealthy.

In addition the technology will change in SL over time, we must estalish early on the idea that the protection of the rights of the landless majority must never be overriden by the monetary power of those who own land. The protection of the basic and fundamental civil rights of a citizen should never depend upon whether that citizen has a basic account or a premium. Account may be of different status, but all citizens are premium, and civil rights are universal.

Be sure to promote the full protection of rights by supporting Propsostion 407 the Bill of Rights. It's not the establishment of comprehensive government one might hope for but it's a good start.

Why should "civil rights" be universal? SL is a for-profit entity which is trying to become profitable. Why should they undercut their bottom line so that non-paying users can enjoy all of the same privileges as paying users?

Civil rights yes...media rights no.

Prims = bandwidth = Cost = overhead = PAY FOR A PREMIUM ACCOUNT OR RENT SPACE.

Land = Bandwidth = overhead = premium = paying for the bandwidth we use.

No land = using others space = causing overhead = basic account = SL losing money

Might want to concider that SL could very easily turn around and charge you for the bandwidth you are using. You get what you pay for.

Wow, interesting. My knee-jerk reaction is a resounding "No!", but the way Invect is presenting this is not far from a well-established set of laws that most people don't know about.

If I have a radio station, and I do some kind of politically-oriented show in which I lambaste a candidate for or holder of some public office, I'm required by law to send them a notice (in writing, I think) within X days letting them know what was said about them, and, at their option, give them a chance to rebut it. I'm not sure whether I actually have to allow them into the station for the rebuttal, it may just require reading a written statement over the airwaves. Either way, I'm forced to spend my money and resources to fund this rebuttal.

I'm not sure how far this stretches... it may not include everyone who would disagree with me. Still, the analogy Invect's making is pretty clear: SL is like a broadcast medium, and so shouldn't these same rights of rebuttal be forced on us?

I don't think so, personally, but I'm not exactly sure how to put forth a solid reason why not...

I as an european don't wish to have ANY american law impossed on me !!!

Sorry charlie, I am not giving up any of the prims I PAY for on MY land to support ANYONE's "right" to distribute information via HTML on prims.

I say this AS an American ... so the US Bill of Rights DOES apply to me, however, just because a news program may be REQUIRED to broadcast certain information does not mean that *I* as an American am REQUIRED to own a television set or radio on which to see/listen to this information!

The right of free press has never meant that anyone was FORCED to listen to a broadcast or read a news report. Never. It has never required that anyone maintain a subscription to a particular newspaper, or even to any newspaper at all.

To say that landowners are required to give up a portion of their allotment of prims so that people may use those prims to spread news or any kind of information is akin to requiring someone to put up a newstand in their yard, imo.