Free Speech Guide

With all the arguments about free speech on SL, how about LL create / link to a website describing free speech, slap it in the TOS and posting rules for the forum, and then disputes could be settled quicker about what is permissable and what is not, TOS notwithstanding?

There's no need, because there isn't any true free speech in SL. There's the reasonable facsimile... Linden Lab isn't a tyrannical dictatorship or anything, but they reserve the right and the ability to shut down whatever speech they deem fit, at any time. It's legal protection.

For instance, if some moron decided to upload child porn, and post it all over his build, wouldn't you want the Lindens to remove it ex post haste? If the TOS didn't specifically provide the clause of "Linden Lab reserves the right to blah blah blah", they would have their hands tied. Sure, they could delete it, but they open themselves up to a free-speech lawsuit by the child porn peddler.

It's much easier, and legally sound, to just say "yeah, we're all about free speech, but we reserve the right to crush it at any time."

There is no free speech in a corporately-owned virtual world.

LF

Lets play a little game.

Just go with me on this and answer my questions. Would you be comfortable with LL removing all your L$ from the game? And if you don't mind answering, how many L$ do you own? It's ok if you don't answer that one, I can make something up.

Lordfly,

Child porn is illegal, and clearly not allowing it is nothing to do with free speech.

Free speech is allowing people to make personal attacks on social institutions and on other people up to the point at which such attacks become illegal. That is certainly not what happens in second life, and it seems to me that's not what happens in America as a whole.

Sure, because i can always make more.

I have currently $11,001 lindens.

LF

Selador,

Thank you for making my point about child porn. It is illegal and abhorant. SL did not need to make a clause in its TOS because state & federal law already trumps any TOS SL could come up with on this subject.

As far as free speech goes, as long as your speech is not malicious in its intent then I don't see a problem with it.

However, cartoon child pornography isn't illegal. Neither is pornography that features young-looking models who are actually 18+. What should LL do in those cases?

Its sad, we are all adults here or atleast we should all be 18 or older.. and we still need these little rules.. on rule i try to follow is if i think it will piss someone off i try not to do it even if the rules say i can.. just be considerate and such and you wont have a problem.. seems like people want concrete rules to see what the maximum they can get away with is.

Alexander,

<<As far as free speech goes, as long as your speech is not malicious in its intent then I don't see a problem with it.>>

Ah, but free speech should include speech that is malicious, otherwise it's not free.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that not all speech is free from government interfernce. Any speech that incites violence is not protected speech, therefore, malicious speech is not protected speech.

did you have a point to your questions, molecular, or did you just want me to divulge my financial status?

Alexander,

<<Any speech that incites violence is not protected speech, therefore, malicious speech is not protected speech.>>

Sorry - that seems like a non-sequitur to me. Being malicious is not the same thing as inciting violence. There is a great deal of malicious speech in these forums, but not much promotion of violence.

Carnildo,

<< What should LL do in those cases?>>

It depends on their commitment to free expression.

Since you're perfectly willing to let LL take USD$61+ from you, I have no way of arguing with you. I've often been told by people that LL "wouldn't dare" remove their L$ due to its real world value, but since you don't share the same view, my point is impossible to make.

The "free speech" that most of us hold so dear is not applicable all the time. For the most part, it is granted to us by restrictions we impose on our government. The First Ammendment of the US Constitution bars Congress from passing any law that would intentionally prevent a citizen from speaking his or her mind. Nowhere does it state that each person has the right to say whatever they want whenever they want, only that Congress is not allowed to write laws which would directly stop them. This is an incredibly important distinction.

We tend to think of free speech as a universally guiding principle, which is applicable in every situation and every environment. It would be nice if this were true, but it isn't. We all know the FCC has the power to restrict and control what goes out over the airwaves. (Those of us who are Howard Stern fans know that all too well.) Many towns have ordinances that ban certain types of media from being accessable to children. Most townships and cities have ordinances that restrict the decibel level at which amplifiers are allowed to operate. Many states have laws which govern where and how pornigraphy can be distributed. Most cities have zoning laws which restrict what areas can be used for business purposes and what areas must remain residential. All of this restricts free speach, but it is all also constitutional.

How this relates to SL is simple. SL is owned and operated by Linden Labs. What happens within it is entirely at their discression. They have the right to allow or disallow anything they want, period.

Now, that may rub you the wrong way sometimes when you aren't allowed to do a certai thing you'd rather you could, but think of the bigger picture. Would you really want that power of ownership removed? Can you imagine the implications if that were to happen?

Would you really want your next door neighbor to be able to scream into a 12,000 watt PA system at 3:00 in the morning just so he can piss everyone off because he has the right to free speach, or do you agree that your right to peace and quiet inside your own house should supercede that?

The bottom line is the owner of a property has the ultimate say as to what is not allowed to take place within the confines of that property. If a property owner decides that certain things cannot be said on his or her propert, or even that nothing at all can be said, that is his or her right. In one's own castle, one is king.

"Free speech" is simply a restriction on the federal government. It is absolutely not (fortunatley or unfortunately) a universal right to be upheld in every situation.

LL cannot vet the materials created/uploaded by SL subscribers, and allegedly does not either.

The reason is a not a technical one. It's because that if they stated that player-owned materials are validated by the company, then they would become legally responsible for the presence of any materials that were deemed to fall foul of one law or another. That would be an extreme can of worms, and potentially costly.

Under community standards, LL does not even pretend to look at player's property. Only if something is reported to them do they then take a look and act, as they have to since they would lose a viable legal defence otherwise.

Also, remember not to be US-centric in these issues. Europeans are quite unconcerned about sex and nudity for example, whereas the US seems to be quite unconcerned with violence but highly repressed when it comes to their bodies. So, one rule cannot apply to all. LL have it dead right with their open approach to community standards, which do not seek to apply any universal value judgements.

Chosen,

<<Would you really want your next door neighbor to be able to scream into a 12,000 watt PA system at 3:00 in the morning just so he can piss everyone off because he has the right to free speach, or do you agree that your right to peace and quiet inside your own house should supercede that?>>

Why is it that in discussions on free speech, people constantly use as examples things, like the quote above, which are nothing at all to do with free speech? In the example above you are talking about anti-social noise pollution, which is nothing to do with free speech.

However, what you have said, and what Robin recently said in these forums, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the much-trumpeted land of free speech is actually nothing of the sort, and that America is actively opposed to the concept.

I think that applies to an extent in the real world. Especially in terms of what content major media outlets send to print.

Getting in way over my head here for only my second post, but essentially, the point of your post is: Linden Labs, as the proprietors of the venue at which you are "speaking", has a right to limit their definition of acceptable speech to curb their liability, and to keep as many people as happy as they can be. After all, you are paying for the priviledge of expressing yourself at their venue. However, if you disagree with the limits set by Linden Labs, your first amendment right to free speech prohibits the government from interfering if you decide to cancel your subscription, get together with your own coding team, and develop a There.com/SecondLife competitor, with a different set of acceptable speech limits, so that you can post whatever you want.

Am I correct?

SL is not the US government. They could make every moderatly naughty word bleep out if they wanted to and it is entirely up to them.

Free Speech 1st ammendment rights are just there so that if we want to say something, the government can't come in and hush us up. Other entities can though. If a company wants to put into effect rules that people can't say cetain things or talk about certain things, that's entirely up to them, and if you didn't follow them, they could kick you out if they wanted to.

Now, I've never looked into this myself, but is the studio that does SL even in the US? If they're not, then that could bring up other interesting points bout free speech, but we can all save that for another time.

/sigh

The variety of responses in this thread are evidence that we need this guide.

We have had some LONG, intelligent discussions about freedom of speech on SL, I don't to quote them here, but the bottom line is that it could be clearly stated so that we can stop having discussions and everyone would be on the same page.

TheWolf,

<<If a company wants to put into effect rules that people can't say cetain things or talk about certain things, that's entirely up to them, and if you didn't follow them, they could kick you out if they wanted to.>>

Yes, that goes without saying. The essential question, so far as I am concerned is: should they?