SL Bill of Rights/Constitution

I posted in the Polysci forum about it but I know polysci sees little to no traffic from your typical forum dweller.

http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=407
(the vote)

/148/28/50072/1.html#post531242
(official thread for a vote)

I will repost here some of the things I posted there, ie, an idea of what a bill of rights could possibly include?

This thread is not meant to become a flame war. If it does get closed, please refer to the polysci thread for actual debate. Also... keep in mind that the rights I am proposing already exist in the United States. Please keep in mind that LL is a private corperation, and that they have the ability to make any decision they want with their own world. This means that in extreme or special cases such rights enacted by a bill of rights within SL or constitution could be temporarily suspended and that any decision reguarding what is included under these rights is good pending an appeal to a higher level of administration (something which currently DOESN'T happen, exist, or work).

With that out of the way, here is an example of what I mean by rights and a plausible description of those rights as an excerpt from my polysci thread:

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).

SL is a totalitarian society, so no bills of rights are especially likely. Hey, at least it doesn't PRETEND to be a "democracy" like some real-life governments I can name. So just admire the honesty.

I think LL is the only folks that have the ability to create one that will be enforced, thus the Community Standards and Terms of Service.

exactly... but this is just to see if there is desire within the player base to try to get them to adopt something. I have stated quite obviously that these are just ideas thus far, and examples. this is just to determine what the players want. LL DOES take it's users wants and desires into account when planning and doing things. I figure it's at least worth a try. Even if I fail miserably in getting them to adopt such a constitution and/or bill of rights, it's no biggie... only so many words on an electronic forum after all.

I for one welcome our Linden Overloards

I for one welcome our Linden Overlords

I don't like the idea that people could just build whatever they want. I do not want to see a perfect replication of a death camp or 9/11. I don't want to see racial hatred portrayed freely. I don't want to see white supremacy or nazis in game.

Now you could say that this wasn't your intention by suggestiong this, but people would still be free to build these things under this plan. No.



I don't feel we should be free to spew endless screaming vulagarities at one another. This would be a bad thing. Hate speech and racial slurs fall under this provision, as well as just plain old very annoying screaming "Fuck You" matches. Again, No




Same as above, only in the forums. Again, No




You already can carry firearms in the damage zones, what you want, as you say, are more war zones. That's a different proposal, you can start a seperate vote for that, this doesn't fit in the frame of a 'constitution'.




I think the person filing a complaint against some crap a griefer pulled is entitled to some protection from retaliation. No.





As above, the person filing the complaint is entitled to privacy and protection. No

I don't like the idea that so many people think their standards are universally applicable. Whether or not you want to see something is not a valid reason to prevent me from building it. There's already the limitation of PG/Mature - and it's a valid one, because it lets people choose what level they want to see. But that's not your trouble; you want to see some offensive material, just not other offensive material. Well, I agree that I'd rather see good, clean wholesome porn over a Nazi death camp replica, but there are those who would be equally offended by either - but I'm also willing to accept that it's my responsibility to deal with seeing something I'd rather not see in a mature manner.


You know, your position annoys me for various reasons, and I strongly oppose it.

But this statement just fills me with disgust. This superlicious "well, clearly you just haven't thought through the consequences" has a vaguely threatening tone; a feeling of "that's not what you meant - right?!" that carries oppressive overtones. Of course, maybe that's not what you meant (see how much nicer and relatively positive that phrasing is?), and if that's the case I'm certainly not going to hold it against you.

If this weren't a recreational 'game' that I pay for, something to enjoy after a long day at work, I'd certainly agree with you. But it is what it is. As such, I quite like the limitations on hate speech and the like that we have.




Nope, you hit the nail on the head , that's exactely what I meant .. except for the threatening part. I said it that way because it's my belief that this is just what the OP wants these freedoms to do. I got the distinct feeling he'd be one of the first to scream vulgarities and nonsense on the forums without fear of penalty. In this sort of setting (very important point there) it always seems that it's the potential griefers who scream loudest for the freedom to grief while couching it in a protest for civil liberty.

I'l point out what I disagree with in your post, but it's like, the entire thing.

If people have the freedom to be as nasty as they wanna be, whether in an entertainment online medium or on the public streets, you can bet that pretty soon they will have the place pretty much to themselves.

coco

I think that this is a healthy attitude. It shows respect for the values of others, rather than trying to lord one's own values over others.

I also think we should have a right to face our accusers, and as such, anonymous abuse reports should go away. Anonymity in the reporting system lends itself to a "honeypot" situation in which anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, with perfect anonymity, and (as far as I know) without any negative repercussions if the report is not verified. If someone is trying to dirty-pool me, and the Lindens decide their reports are unfounded, I want to know about it - but as it stands I wouldn't be notified. An accused person should KNOW they are accused, and of what, and by whom, and be given a chance to present their side BEFORE judgment.

Have you used IRC before? I have been using it for almost ten years. We are allowed to say what we please, and for the large part it remains civil. When it becomes annoying, ops have the power to kick people out. In a similar ven, we have land access controls.

I love the idea. I was accused of something months ago, I didn't hear of it until i was informed of the decision to repremand me. There was no explaination of what I did, something about a noisy script. I was playing with scripts as I learned, but no one ever asked me to stop making noise. ecause of that issue I had to wait a month to offer my assistance as an instuctor. I emailed back requesting any information, there was no response.

If we had the right to at least know what we did, so we could avoid it in the future would be nice.

I agree with all of the rights you list and thank you for bringing it up.

I especially agree with the last two points. I have no doubts that I and a few others could make up plenty of charges to get members banned in SL. They wouldn't even know who was doing it if you played your alts right. Anominisity of the accuser is the most bullshit rule in the entirety of SL.

Incorrect.

Historically, the greater the level of personal freedom in a society or group, the higher the level of civility. One, if people actually accept and understand the concept of "your right to say it even if I disagree", there's a lot less reaction to "controversial" statements - and therefore a lot lower incidence of those statements purely for controversy's sake.

Two, in a truly free society, you have the right to say what you really think - and people have the same freedom to respond. With relatively rare exceptions, most people don't like being the lone holdout.

Nonsense. You're overlooking all the despicable behavior there are laws against irl, and the rest which, while there are no laws against it, will clear a room real fast.

coco

Please provide examples of this despicable behavior.

I'm not sure who you're talking to but the right to face your accuser is not nonsence, especially in a no evidence required punishment system SL currently has.

I hate to be negative, but this is all rather nonsensical.

All of the "rights" (esp 1-4) already exist in SL for the most part, but are qualified by the genral statement that "your rights end where anothers begin."

For example you already have the right to free speech, but that right is over the minute someone is truly offended by what you have said or built. Then some sort of climb-down or compromise has to be reached.

If you put these in a "bill of rights" they would be no different. No right is absolute and would also prety much end where others rights begin. Same thing exactly.

5 and 6 are really just about wanting a more open and "legalised" system of dealing with abuse reports. While I dont necessarily disagree with that thought, it is really nothing to do with a bill of rights.

Human rights bills abound with the UN having the best one IMO.
(too bad the US wont sign it )

This is really just a re-inventing the wheel kind of thing AFAICS.

You just contradicted yourself. The right to free speech means exactly that, and it is absolute for all citizens. Yes I'm well aware this is not the situation SL currently has, this Bill of Rights would change that.

One question, and if you can provide a rational, valid answer I will remove all objection.

Why is your dollar worth more than my dollar?


Sorry, you can't remove the threat. It's implicit in the statement you made; the idea that no one could possibly think other than you do on this issue, and therefore the other person should correct their viewpoint is only one step from forcibly trying to regulate their opinion.



Maybe. What's your point?

One: Griefers are looking for attention in virtually 100% of cases. So, then, do you suppose they're upset by your attempts to regulate them out of existence? Or pleased?

Personally, I'd bet money there's organic material on thousands of Kleenexes every time someone suggests another rule-based limit on griefing.

Two: If someone you don't like supports a good idea, does it invalidate the idea?

Three: You suggest that because you think OP would act a certain way, we have to limit his freedom of action.

Now you're definitely off my holiday card list.

Four: Let's suppose you're right. OP floods the forum with vulgarity. The rules don't prohibit this; in fact, let's say the rules explicitly permit this. What have you lost? Does your ignore button suddenly not work? Is every forum instantly useless? Is the validity of every other post suddenly lowered because his posts are invalid?

I think, if that happened, you would see the instant creation of "blocklists", where "forum griefers" are listed in a format that's easily added to the "ignore" list. Problem solved. No unnecessary restrictions required.

Yay!
Lets hear it for the new guy!

Sensible words for a change.

Moved to Political Science Forum, which was created to host such threads about SL-related politics.

We already have a post about this in that forum.

No right is absolute.
Look it up.

Free speech in particualr ends at the border of "hate speech" or whatever it is called in the US. There are several other ways in which your right to free speech is regularly limited in RL or SL also. This is not necessarily a bad thing though.