Right to Free Speech

Right to Free Speech

The right to free speech cannot be realized in a vacuum, therefore the right of landowners to ban people based on the contents of their words shall be suspended; those who use the land ban to ban anyone based on speech shall be considered to be engaged in abuse and receive punishment in the form of warnings, suspension and banning as with other forms of abuse.

I disagree with this. If you own the land you should have every right in the world to ban someone from it.

I mean if you are drawing parallels from the U.S. when exactly can I go onto a private citizens property and exercise my right to free speech if he doesn't want me there.

Doesn't happen in rl, shouldn't happen in SL.

Good idea... Griefers for everyone. One of the first pro-griefer posts I've read on any forum

Whew. There are some problems with this. For one thing, just about all the interaction we have with people in SL could easily be considered "speech", up to and including shooting.

I think free speech as a concept is constantly misunderstood or misapplied to online communities such as SL. Free speech was never intended to mean that you can say whatever you want to say; it was designed to allow you to spout off against what the government is doing without fear of punishment. By definition, freedom of speech is never intended to be concerned with interactions between two people -- you can be kicked out of a restaurant just because you said something the owner doesn't like. The same analogy applies here.

I fully disagree in the meaning you want to have of this so called free speach. what else is there to when someone is bothering you. For crying out loud if they were on my land i would be sending them on there nice little way. I for one, not sure about others do not want to have to deal with people bothing the heck out of someone on the base of free speach when they are on land i or a friend might own. Good idea on paper, but come on we are talking people.

I definetly have to disagree with this. You say Free Speech as if by you offending someone with your speech you shouldnt be able to be banned from the areas you offended people. Free Speech is all good. But when your on someones land you play by their rules. You dont like it, dont go back. Sorry bud.

There is no right to free speech while using the digital product of a privately owned corporation. LL has the right and power to censor speech as they see fit, even if they choose not to exercise it. You have the right to leave.

Linden Labs is NOT a government. Second Life is not a state, nor a country!!!!!

/me makes an addition to ban list

Sometimes folks become confused about the difference between freedom and license. This might be the case here. Freedom of speech does not grant anyone a license to abuse or offend.

Totally agree.

The bottom line is basically, your on someone elses land. They have the right to remove you from that land essentially for any reason they desire. Your basically admitted by their will and grace...not yours.

Be good

"Freedom of speech does not grant anyone a license to abuse or offend."

This girl feels this statement needs thought and clarification. Let girl give an example. Girl's Master came to club where girl works to get her. Girl anounced to everyone dancing that her master was comming and that she would be engaged in role-play for about 5 min before they would be leaving the club. So Master comes, he activates the leash which is a game devised item, and he leads girl away and we port out. And so 3 of the people there IM girl that they were offended, because they do not approve of slavery. They felt he was abusing girl! /sigh There can be no abuse where one consents to it. Girl did not feel so bad since there was an equal number who said it was interesting break to dance monotony, and they enjoyed the brief show.

Anyone can be offended about anything, that does not mean the offender is doing anything wrong or improper. People have to have certain freedoms to act certain ways, and if some are offended by them exercizing their freedom, then the only thing to do is to say, "too bad, deal with it".

In girl's case, freedom of speach and and expression touches people's values they bring from first life. Girl supports freedom of expression of feelings and issues within her second life world, but she does not support the expression of opinions from the first life world in the second life world. Girl does not wish to go to second life and see adds for President, or telling her how to vote , or anything from first life. That freedom needs to be restricted since it would make second life the same as first life. Girl would not be able to escape from first life and would see same things wherever she went. If a city in second life is having an election, then those candidates should be allowed to free expression of any issue relevant to second life, provided it is not placed on someone else's property who has not given permission. Girl does not know if there is public owned land in second life, or if it is all private, but if there is LL owned common areas, LL should allow politics related to second life world there.

Lovepeace

*runs off to add Invect to my ban lists*

What someone consents to allow done to them or said to them is their business and....totally different from just running up to someone and doing or blurting out whatever they feel....while hiding behind the shield of freedom of speech and freedom of choice...not to mention liberalism that borders on stupidity.

Don't get me wrong , I am all for freedom of speech and free choice and the like. However, in no way does that give someone the right to take their verbal freedoms or freedom of action into the realm of being offensive or insulting to an individual or a group of persons, especially if it is directed at them personally.

Given that this person is on someone elses land, in this particular situation. They are at the grace and will of the person that owns that land. Like it or not. If the lack of control over the position that they may find themselfs in for saying or doing something that may offend the land owner bothers them. Then they should'nt say or do those things. Keeping in mind all the while that the social majority dictate what is socially correct and the difference between right and wrong, exceptable and not..etc. Not some fringe group of people or a single individual. The fringe group or the individual would be social divients. The term should be self explanitory.

With freedom comes at least a certain amount of responsibility and all that word implies. In this case to the land owner and those in the social group. As well as a certain amount of consideration. Just because an individual thinks what they are doing or saying is all well and fine, does'nt mean it actually is. So the idea of "well they will have to just deal with it" does'nt hold water.

Now it is true that some people are just thin skinned and are easily offended. That does'nt change the fact, in this case, that the land owners will prevails over all.

Steps off the soap box and prepares for the flames...

Be good.

I've encountered this guy a few times in SL. Some of the things I've heard out of this guy seemed aimed specifically to get a rise out of people. And because of this and my experiences with him, I am lead to believe that he is in no way truely serious about this suggestion, but his goal is only to stir up trouble and cause conflict. I believe if he was serious about this, the only reason he would want this rule is, so that HE will stop getting banned from peoples land from forcing his insulting opinions on people.

Free speech never applied to private property in RL, so no.

I second Hiro, I refuse to read the rest of this becuase the post it self is nonsense.

You own the land, you ave full rights on that land. period.

On the flip side freedom of speach ends where someone elses peace to exsist begins.

You have a rude awakening coming to you when you realize that even in the real world there are limits to what is called "Free Speech" You see, slander, harassment, among other things come into play. Also the fact that SL is NOT a US customer base only. One day when you come out of your little box and realize there's a whole big world out there with different laws and beliefs, maybe you will understand. Familiarize yourself with the laws, and rights of others, as well as reading the full text on what "Freedom of speech" entitles you to. It seems you greatly misunderstand what your rights truely are.

My take on this is that two cases exist.

On private land the landholder has the right to keep out anyone he dores not like, and thus can get rid of anyone who's remarks cause offense. he has the duty of seeing that his actions or those of his guests do not cause offense... including walling off and sound proofing areas in which " ofensive behavior " takes place.

In public places, I belive no one should deliberatly take actions that will cause real offense. however this would not include debate between parties if they where in a suitable forum, and would not cause offense to buystanders.
I see no way to regulate this.

Some activities ( such as trading pedofile material ) could have consiquences in RL, and should be subject to the local RL laws.

I would ask "girl " how comfortable she would be if she was confronted RL by the mother of a young girl who had been present at the club when her display was put on.
IF the club had access limited so a young girl or anyone else for whome the show would have been "unsuitable" was excluded then that's fine....

I suppose " girl " can garentee that her display would not have given ideas to any nutcase in the audiance that might lead to undesirable RL behavior.

Regards Jonathan

My take on this is that two cases exist.

On private land the landholder has the right to keep out anyone he dores not like, and thus can get rid of anyone who's remarks cause offense. he has the duty of seeing that his actions or those of his guests do not cause offense... including walling off and sound proofing areas in which " ofensive behavior " takes place.

In public places, I belive no one should deliberatly take actions that will cause real offense. however this would not include debate between parties if they where in a suitable forum, and would not cause offense to buystanders.
I see no way to regulate this.

Some activities ( such as trading pedofile material ) could have consiquences in RL, and should be subject to the local RL laws.

I would ask "girl " how comfortable she would be if she was confronted RL by the mother of a young girl who had been present at the club when her display was put on.
IF the club had access limited so a young girl or anyone else for whome the show would have been "unsuitable" was excluded then that's fine....

I suppose " girl " can garentee that her display would not have given ideas to any nutcase in the audiance that might lead to undesirable RL behavior.

Regards Jonathan

In your own words then you would deny the land owners right to free speech.

I find myself often coming down further on the side of public use than many folks here, and I think that banning people should be a last resort (and I'm always amazed at the number of people who have global bans on their property by default)... but...

This is just silly.

I've never used the ban feature in SL, and I never expected to, certainly not preemptively... but I'm really tempted to make Invect Hasp an exception in both cases.

I won't, but, damn...

pwned.


This is like.. having someone come into *your* home and spew some sting of obsenities at you while doing things to your husband or wife. You'd want them off wouldn't you? And who's to say that you don't have a right to take them off of property you pay every month for with the money you work bust your back over.

It's a stupid request sorry

Come on guys, the first post was obviously troll and flame bait. ^^ No one's that stupid.

RIGHT, INVECT?

pfft, I would love to believe that

Lets try to keep on topic, and not call anyone names. Invects idea is an interesting one though so far unpopular.

The whole subject is a non-issue.

Young girls and boys are not permitted in the SL Main Grid. If you know of such, they're violating the TOS and you should report them to be exiled, er, moved for protective reasons, to the Teen Grid until they're 18. You can safely assume that everyone you meet in SL is 18. There's a difference between maturity and age, but our laws and culture are based on the premise that at 18, you're mature enough to handle sex and dirty language, and it is your personal responsibility (not a popular term with the personally irresponsible, I know) to make sure that's true or avoid those situations on your own and not cry about it. And by "our laws and culture", I mean U.S. laws and culture, since that's where Linden Labs is. If you're offended by what's permitted under U.S. laws and culture, you should take enough personal responsibility for your life to not go to places operating under those rules.

Since all spaces, even "PG" in SL terms, are actually 18+, the entire "BUT WE MUST PROTECT THE CHEEEEEEEELDREN" high-pitched whine used by high-pitched whiny parental types is irrelevant.

Almost all spaces in SL are private property, and the landowner can and should decide on what rules to apply for banning. As an example: If there's a fundamentalist christian group in SL, I expect them to be very restrictive and ban anyone who blasphemes, wears attachable sex organs, etc., which is most of us. If you come into my land waving a cross around, I'm going to ban you; you're welcome as long as you're civil, but your primitive torture instruments are not.

In the few "public" spaces, LL already has TOS rules for what's allowed and what isn't, and abuse reporting is easy to do.

It might help to look at the posting history of the first poster, however, if you wish to understand his motivations. That's true of everyone, of course.