SL Bill of Rights/Constitution

You were previously saying that free speech ends when someone gets offended, this is not the case in RL nor do I think it should be the case in SL. (Note that by RL I am refering to U.S. laws, I have no idea what is considered unlawful speech in your country)

LOL teddy... anyway



How could I have made my intention any clearer than to say that it should be somone's rights to build /anything/ that they want on their own mature land. The US bill of rights protects everyone (and was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for such), including those who hate other people, so long as they do not infringe on another's rights to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.



Are you free at your job now, fine sir to go about doing activities such as this? Would your (private) employer go about allowing you to engage in vulgarity contests with the person in the next sardine can cubicle? Can you do as such on main street in the town you live in? NO! there are such laws about disturbing the peace and which protect us from this, and WE STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN THE REAL WORLD. what makes you think that in a virtual world we could not also prevent such things under a constitution?

There are standards for vulgarity. I believe that if someone is on his own land he should be able to say anything they want (mature land). They should be able to call black people "ni....." chinese people "ch..." and white people "cr....." on land they own. Just don't shoot me with a push script/crash/interfere/harass with me on land you do not own, or physically block me from going from point A to point B. Saying things does not equal doing things. the right to free speech is limited even in the US to things that do not deprive someone of life, liberty, or persuit of happiness. You have the right to limit what you deem as offensive on your own mature land, I do not believe you should have this right to deem something as offensive on someone else's land.



While THIS was just as another example of something we could add to a bill of rights in terms of stated right, it is still within the reach of a constitution to include a guarantee to provide such areas as combat areas to users who wish to use them and guarantees to the right to use them. Either way, combat sims are not the topic here for vote. It the userbase's desire to have rights that is called into the light.



as I said... protection from retaliation comes in the fact that unless someone wants to add to charges against them and solidify such a case, they will accept and defend themselves legally rather than griefing. Have you ever been abuse reported? Have you ever gotten a warning against your account for something that was done in the best interests of everyone or done on your own land?

Would you rather in REAL LIFE to be dragged from your home, and thrown in jail for a week and not told why? perhaps it was for that one time you picked a petunia from the flower garden at the park, or when you told off that jerk on the subway who stole your wallet, and someone else heard you screaming a swearword and didn't like it. Or when you accidentally forgot your fly was down. You will never know and you will never be able to defend yourself from those charges. Have fun sitting in jail for a week. perhaps it was that one time you went to the bar and had a belching contest and the person next to you thought it was disgusting. The bartender was even participating but they didn't call the cops on the barkeep....



Protection? Definitely. Privacy? Only as far as not knowing who did the actual reporting. They should be entitled to know the text of the complaint. What did they do? Why is what they did bad?

More importantly they deserve, as I stated just earlier, the ability to defend themselves against charges against them. The accused have no rights in SL. NONE AT ALL, other than to call and complain and even then they don't find out the WHY. As soon as you find yourself accused you will want those rights. I guarantee it.

In SL the punishment is neither swift nor is it directly tied to the behaviour. I am pretty sure you will defend the system in place until you find yourself on the other side of it.

It's not. You are pretty free to purchase a membership in an online service the same as I am. If you happen to agree with the policies this online service states, more power to you. I happen to agree with the TOS policies LL has given us and see no reason to allow a 'complete' freedom of expression as if this is some public venue.




I don't care one whit what their opinion is. However, this venue, Second Life, does has limitations as to how those opinions are expressed. As I've said, I agree with them.




What's yours?



I really couldn't care less



No. I wouldn't care about my personal feelings toward the person, all that would matter is if I liked the idea or not.



Everyones freedom of action in SL is limited to the TOS. I see no reason to further limit his actions, but if said person, or any person, wishes greater freedoms to grief, then yes, absolutely, keep them limited to the TOS



Oh dear!



When I use the word 'vulgarity' I'm not really talking about the occasional use of "shit", or "fuck", or what have you. I'm referring more toward unrestrained hate speech, excessive gratuitous swearing that does nothing more than celebrate gutter talk. (yes, I said guttertalk) If you think allowing this in this 'private' forum somehow equates to freedom or liberty, then I suggest you're mistaken



I'd rather rely on the present TOS to reign in verbal griefers. It's there for a reason, and it works.

edited to correct a few misplaced [] quote symbols only

Too bad SL isn't the US.



We can also prevent this by the continued use of the TOS



There is nothing nothing NOTHING that justifies or legitamizes bigotry and racial hatred. Bigotry in any fashion should be fought against with every breath we have, and the idea that you feel it's perfectly all right to allow someone to continue this abomination just as long as they don't act on it, is deeply revolting to me.




What about retaliation from alts and from friends? Alts of friends? Nothing. Nothing except anonymity.



No, that would suck! Luckily I live in the real world and not SL. This is SL we're talking about after all so I think your example is a little wacked. I'd hate to have Gargamel bust in my house too.



This I will agree with, you should know in general what you did. I voted Yes to this in a proposal. But only in general.




SL is not the US. It's a private service provided by a bunch of business guys. We pay not for cival liberty online, but for the use of the service.

I disagree that any of this so called bill of rights is needed, the ToS and CS are perfectly workable and in place. Other than that its just my opinion and I dont like the idea at all.

What is not to like about it? Currently SL rules are are made up of who bitches the most and this would atleast give protection to unique builds, wrongful accusations, and different opinions.

Can you give a description of these unique builds destroyed and different opinions expressed? Something clear and definite.

there was a 27 page thread in general about such a build that dominated the top of General for 3 days until it degraded into a flame war that I don't want to see here.

mars: I am glad I can sicken you with my opinion. Truely glad. I am also glad that you can sicken me with yours, and you do sicken me quite efficiently. That's the point though.

Was it the 9/11 thing? If so, oh yes, what a worthy build ...

Unique though? Hardly, there's always someone who wants to be the biggest prick around and piss off the most people. All in the name of freedom, right?

It is every person's inalienable right to decide how they will perceive the world, is it not? Brutal repression of opposing systems of thought seems deeply revolting to me. It is extremely conceited.

Well ok then, next time I see a bunch of rednecks dressed up in their white sheets and burning some crosses on a black guys lawn, I'll try to look at them with a new appreciation and respect.

Next time I see a band of skinhead neonazies screaming for the eradication of the jews, I'll say to myself, "Wow, isn't it refreshing to see these people expressing their freedom of speech ...

Simply said I like the present system and have zero problems with it.

Come on this is all obvious stuff.
You have "free speech" in RL right? but it is *not* absolute. Only a Grade-schooler would think so. You dont have the right for instance to get up and shout anti-jewish things or talk about your penis to that old lady on the bus, because people get *offended*. (I only mention the bus thing cause it happened to me!)

On the other hand, if you are sitting around with friends of "like mind", both those things become possible, because you have "free speech" and no one in your group would presumably be offended.

This is *exactly* the same as in SL. You can build or say what ever you want. There are no lists of words you cant say or ideas you will get thrown out of the game for having.

But.... If you build a "comical" build showing something that someone finds offensive, then you have to be a good citizen and take it down.
All of this already exists.
Same thing, same country.
Your "Bill of Rights" already exists.

The only other possibility is that you actually *are* talking about absolute rights in the sense of having the right to free speech with *no* exceptions. If this is the case, then pretty much anything goes. Pictures of the Pope having sex or the Queen on the toilet, anything, any words, any statements, for any reason.

While this would certainly be interesting, and I mihgt be in favour of it, I dont think you will find many people brave enought to try it, or agree with you that it is a great thing to have.

The common name for this kind of political system is ... "Anarchy."

It certainly depends on what type of anti-Jewish things you are talking about, as long as I am not trying to incite violence I can hate Jews all I want, deny the holocaust, and open a website dedicated to hating Jews and telling people how stupid they are. I do not hold anti-Jewish beliefs and I am just giving examples. I do not see how talk of penis on a bus is relevant at all.



We're on the same ground here, and this is exactly the free speech that needs to be ensured to SL residence, but I myself have seen that it has not. A build depicting the WTC as a parody may certainly be offensive to some, but if it is on my land and is not enforced on anyone I should not have a Linden come remove it.



No it isn't, and that is exactly why Jarhyn decided to make this proposal. Again I have first hand experience.


Why should I have to "be a good citizen"as you put it) and take it down? The build is not intruding on anyone and no one is being forced to view. It is there for pure parody value and it is your own choice whether to get offended or not.


Absolute rights are optional as long as it doesn't end up as harrassment, I really only care about securing private builds and ideas that are not intruding on anyone else's SL. Going somewhere and taking pictures of a building YOU were offended by, posting it on an internet forum, and then the person who made the build has to take it down is not free speech at all.

"Rednecks" eh? How can you say something so culturally elitist when, just a few hours ago, you said that racism should be fought pretty much tooth and nail? This strikes me as being logically inconsistent.

I'm not saying you have to like dissenting opinions, just that you ought to respect the right of other people to hold them. You've still got the right of free association, and you don't have to spend any time interacting with them if you don't want.

I would think a good citizen should be able to live and let live instead of trying to force their will on others.

Free speech is not anarchy. Absence of law enforcement is anarchy.

It's easy for me to call embers of the KKK rednecks.

Sorry I'm late to this thread! I'm on vacation in L.A. (back from South Korea). I'm between events right now, so I'll make a quick post before I have to run.

A constitution should describe the structure and the philosophy of an organization, nothing more and nothing less. An excellent example of a constitution created for a virtual world is the Neualtenburg constitution.

The Lindens in our virtual world are a corporatist oligarchy, meaning they are a small group that rules SL and are organized in a corporate hierarchy and selected promoted from above. Because of the relative simplicity of their system and the fact that it's built on the corporate model, we could write a constitution for them ourselves.

As for a virtual-world Bill of Rights, look no further than the International Bill of Human Rights. Rather than write a new Bill of Rights, they should adopt this in its entirety, amending it to add items which are unique to a virtual world (that would be a wonderful exercise for this forum).

There's also a question of whether or not a corporatist oligarchy is capable of adopting the International Bill of Human Rights or if its method of rule would be inherently in conflict with some of bill's rights. (Yet another interesting topic for this forum.)

Here's some of the principle rights from the second covenant just to whet your appetite:

1. the right to work
   
2. the right to form and join trade unions
   
3. the right to just and favorable working conditions
   
4. the right to an adequate standard of living
   
5. the right to the best standards of physical and mental health
   
6. the right to education
   
7. the right of self-determination
   
8. equal rights for men and women
   
9. the right to social security and social insurance
   
10. the right to take part in cultural life
    
11. the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress
    

See anything in there that your country or political party is either officially or unofficially against? If so, it's something to think about.

~Ulrika~

so now the United States of America is an anarchy? You are saying it has always been an anarchy since the adoption of the original US bill of rights?

Burning a cross on someone else's lawn is indeed an infringement on their right to private property. As such, it's not to be accepted. Shouting racial slurs loudly on mainstreet could be considered inciting a riot and disturbing the peace. Both of these are illegal, and punishable. While slightly off topic, even when certain things are within the rights of the people the government sometimes looks the other way or just gives the people a big fuck you for executive reasons. Linden Labs has more legal right to that than the government, because if they want they can go as far as write such a policy into the consitution.

As for a burning cross on your OWN front yard... knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised when the cops pick you up for "unauthorized setting of fires".



yes, in fact, there ARE words and ideas you cannot express in SL. I dare you to try to put a swastika anywhere on your land... people almost got banned for having a cactuar from Final Fantasy running around their lot because it MAY have RESEMBLED a swastika.

I have in fact stated repeatedly that I do not believe in rights without law. There should be (and is) policy which protects people from others putting unwanted stuff on their property unbidden. This is not about infringing on OTHER'S rights to private property. This is about people's rights to HAVE private property.

There is policy which protects users from harassment. This isn't about the presence or need for law, because such need is a GIVEN. A CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS defines that structure of law. You could say that a consitution and bill of rights is a step toward MORE order in SL and less grief. Finally, LL could always put in that one last power clause... any and all decisions are at the sole discression of Linden Labs.

It's currently fashionable to marginalize people who live in rural settings. When terms like this become acceptable, it's a lot easier to totally discount the people themselves and lump into a group stereotype. Of course, this has had some dangerous history. It's been done with Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, etc. This sort of thinking rarely ends well.

whatever.

.

Thanks for playing. Please insert another coin to try again.

Is it also easy for you to call Nation of Islam members n-----s? They're going for pretty much the same philosophy, just with roles switched.

ok, THIS ISN'T RACISM RIGHTS 101. This is a discussion as to wether people in SL deserver rights. STATE YOUR CASE, ADD ANY SUGGESTIONS, REBUT WITH LOGIC or move on. Please keep it civil. I started this thread, and this thread being under my personal power, I have the right to CLOSE this thread if it gets out of hand. I am just thankful you guys have managed to keep the bickering in this one, and not the actual proposal thread.

Racism is a big factor in the quest to free speech admitedly. Conversely I will support someone's right to be a racist before I will support someone's desire to shoot them in the head or throw them in jail or do anything else to them other than offering a dissenting opinion to them, so long as the racist doesn't do anything beyond offering his own opinion and letting things be. Such desires are anethma to combating racism. In fact they validate and facilitate racism because direct conflict or threat to one's way of life is met with a reactionary stance.

EDIT: aparently unlike some more useful forums out there, SL forums do not include the feature that allows a user to delete an entire thread by deleting the first post of said thread. Then again, oh well. I am sure lindens would be more than happy to do it.

You do?

Must we define what anarchy really is, one more time? Because it ain't anything anyone has defined so far in this thread.



And, would the thread originator's right to close down a thread be another clause in the proposed legal code?