SL Constitution?

the proposal is here:
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=407

the thread where people are actually discussing it is here:
/148/ff/50201/1.html
I don't particularly know if this is the right forum for this. I generally despise posting in forums for a game where it's easier to just.. y'know... play the game. But just playing the game doesn't get changes enacted on the game no matter how hard I wish that it would.

Anyway, it has recently become evident that in the light of certain events and goings-on that the rights of residents are under debate.

I would propose that we have a set document explaining not just the standards of behaviour, ie LAWS, but also our RIGHTS as players. What, if any rights do we have to such things as freedom of speech, and freedom of press?

Every society needs law, and this is not in question. The community standards currently act as a code of law in SL. As a resident I would like to present the idea of a SL constitution. Something that Linden Labs could adopt to protect the residents from itself.

Something that would, rather than telling us what we specifically CAN'T do, something that would tell us SPECIFICALLY what we CAN do without fear of being banned. This is not to give people rights to cause grief or harass... Infringing on the rights of others would always be right out. This would be to say which rights a player has that would not be infringed on by player and Linden alike.

I do not mean to take away LL's ability to cover it's butt.. after all, anything they say is always final... but it would be nice to have a bit more peace of mind knowing that I am not likely going to get banned for excersizing XYZ right in a sane manner.

Do we have a right to free speech? exactly how far does that right extend? to the edges of our own land? Only on your own private sim? Should there be specific restrictors on such a right (VERY SPECIFIC)? Do we have a right to peacibly assemble to protest in a public place? should we?

Thoughts?

Interesting approach. You'll probably have to argue about specific actions though. Currently people take up each cause separately, and argue it's merits/demerits. One example is whether we should have the right to shoot back when some griefer shoots at us. (Linden response to Hiro's question about this on the Hotline: don't do it)

Bill of rights. Code of law. A Hammurabi thing.

Well, The reason I post is to see if there would be enough pros to the idea to put a vote up for it. It is an issue given the 26 page thread that generated over the course of 2 days over the rights (or lackthereof) to free speech in SL.

People HAVE gotten banned over this and similar issues, and others have not been banned for similar things. There has to (at least in my mind) be something to take out a bit of the rampant subjectivity of bans in SL.

It is currently a right in the United States for example to Free Speech. this means anything that does not THREATEN action against a person. I can say under the US constitution that I hate (insert racial/political/other group here) and that I wish they would all drop dead. I cannot, however, say that I am going to kill (insert racial/political/other group here).

It is a right to free speech, not a right to not be offended. In SL it is currently the other way around. I would personally prefer the rights to free speech.

Example of ideas for "rights"

(arguable at best for some, not at all for others)
1 the right to free build/expression
2 the right to free speech
3 the right to free press

(questionable application)
4 the right to bear arms in a combat sim

(currently NOT the case)
5 the right to know the charges against oneself
6 the right to self-representation in a conflict between users

1 This doesn't exist by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen multipule builds simply taken down and the builders banned for the build. Perhaps it does require some limitation as to visibility from PG sims (or better yet make mature sims NOT VISIBLE from PG sims other than the land. problem solved QUITE well. Don't want to see it? don't go into a mature area or make it an option to view this material.)

2 Questionable. Saying something is not the same as doing something. Expressing an opinion and ACTING on it are quite different. This would defend EVERYONE, even the lowest of the low (everyone after all has their own varying opinion of "low". I have just as much right to HATE you as I do to LOVE you for WHATEVER reason, and I should be able to speak about this as long as I do not SHOOT you because of that hate. Likewise, because SL is mostly private property, property owners have the right to BAN someone for WHATEVER reason from their land. Harassment is already prohibited. I do not see how this policy could hurt.

3 This right, while not documented is the closest right we have. This is (I suspect) mostly because LL has no control over what people post outside of SL about it or things that go on inside. Still perhaps freedom of press would/could be extended into it's forums.

4 duh. already in existance, but not currently stated so clearly so there is room to question. Also the ability for scripted objects to leave these areas does indeed cause problems for the residents and frequenters of those areas. Further, there are only 2 of these sims on the main grid and the one with resident land on has some serious issues with land scarcity and with land structure. A new continent with combat enabled is a suggestion?

5 I would think the right to be informed of the charges against a person would be vastly benificial to users, and while knowing who did something may or may not be abused it would also be easy to make retaliation and intimidation a MUCH more stiff offense. Any abuse of this would allow lindens to not only remove and hardware ban repeat offenders in a more justified sense, it would also allow one to do the next thing:

6 The right to self-representation under the law does not exist at all in SL. All decisions are immediate and final from the position of the accused. This would restructure the [in]justice system currently in place, and possibly allow it to function a bit more solidly. Even the ability to appeal is castrated because an offender has no rights to know who and why he is being investigated until AFTER the passing of judgement. Unlike the US criminal justice system, it does not COST money to keep an offender out or in jail. The inability of the accused to present evidence in their favor is a big problem. Perhaps make something that would correct this? (ie, allow a user to be notified (sic right #5) and then dump official logs to the server for this purpose which could only be adjusted in time of start and time of end for the entire session).

I think you need to sequence the drafting of a constitution before you have other reforms.

Many societies including the US of A got their start with constituent assemblies that drafted constitutions.

So often in MMORPGS what you find is people who first make a president, then a security force and army and police, and only much later, if at all, give though to a Constitution.

The problem with all this comes with the status of Linden Labs and its game. They may sell it as a tool or a space, not a game, but the law might tend to look at it as a private club with a game, an entertainment, like a pool hall or skating rink with admission or membership. In a private club, the owners can set the rules of speech. Trying to vainly refer to the rights of the US at large from the stance of a private club never works.

If you're going to start looking for shopping lists of things to have when you start a world, in addition to having the right to know the charges against you, you'd need:

o right to counsel
o right to jury of peers
o right to sequestering of witnesses
o right to hear the state make its case against you
o right to familiarize yourself with case materials
o right to be informed of the charges
o right to bring your own witnesses
o right to discovery of facts relevant to the case
o right to appeal
o right to discuss the case with the media

We currently don't have most of those. When you are disciplined, you are not
supposed to talk about it. That deprives both you and the community of the ability of examining whether your punishmenht is just.

I, for once, welcome our future oppressionist constitution overlords!

well, a right to knowing the charges does not necessarily require those rights

As for the fact that LL is private, if you read my arguement, I state that this is in leu of the fact that it is a game and currently they give us no rights, nor are they required. This is to simply see how much the public of SL WANTS these rights and if LL gives them to us given that pressure, all the better.

For an example
right to counsel:
I believe people should be in charge of representing themselves by the rules of the TOS. I do not believe we should fuck up SL with lawyers, nor is it necessary in order for one to be informed of the charges against oneself

right to jury of peers: again not absolutely necessary to know the charges. It is still a private corperation and while it would be REALLY GOOD to have this right, it is not going to happen.

right to sequestering of witnesses: absolved through the idea of secure log submission options after abuse reports for both sides.

right to hear the state make its case against you: IE, a right to know the charges against oneself and the right to self representation. Currently we don't even get to represent ourselves.

right to familiarize yourself with case materials: again, the right to self representation

right to be informed of the charges: durr, this is what this is about

right to bring your own witnesses: see again the thing about secure log submission

right to discovery of facts relevant to the case: anything submitted as "evidence" should be viewable by both sides at time of arbitration.

right to appeal: also discussed in my post. the right to appeal to higher administration should exist. Whether they decide to hear it is again up in the air, but as it is the subjectivity of existing bans requires this for a society with rights

right to discuss the case with the media: this exists in a way, because LL cannot stop you from discussing disciplinary action outside of SL, where the primary media of SL lies.