A New Blow for Freedom of Speech?

This.

Sorry, but what happened to civility?

My own main objection to swearing is that there are those who tend to use epithets as a replacement for thoughtful expression. I don't get "offended" by it: I get BORED by it.

The key point here is this, surely: the basic rules of civility that apply in RL should apply in SL as well. People do get offended (or bored) by excessive swearing: it is therefore uncivil, insensitive, and ultimately ineffective and counterproductive to employ it in a context where it might cause offence.

More likely they liked the place or wanted something there, lacked manners and didnt give a hang about what was and wasnt acceptable, and wanted to be a big martyr by coming here to blast them instead of taking responsibility for their rudeness. It wouldnt be the first time and it won't be the last.

The bottom line is we'll NEVER know what happened. But the facts are the facts. If someone doesn't understand the basics here then what can you do?

Wrong again.

Pep (The only rules that apply are the ToS/Guidlelines; civility is irrelevant.)

Second Life would be a pleasanter place if residents - particularly DJs, moderated their language. I just get tired of people over using the F word, and even worse the M/F word just to show they're hard and bit edgy. Or do we live in a virtual world full of rednecks and chavs?

It's not the sexual explicitness of swearing that bothers me so much as that such language signifies contempt and anger to me.

I can not believe how incredibly hypocritical you are being . . .

Pep ( . . . given your explicit support for those who use disgusting language, of the type you appear to be condemning, to wish death upon others.)

This is like saying that the only "rules" that apply to RL are the ones specifically laid out by statute. Society wouldn't function very well were that the case. And the same applies to SL.

Huh????????

Care to elaborate?

They ain't rules dear. They are conventions whereby the weak attempt to impose some sort of influence over the strong . . .

Pep ( . . . and fail.)

No, it's about social justice, and care, concern, and (yes) respect for one's fellow humans.

ETA: "dear" again? Cheap, cheap, cheap.

This is the text of a post by the person over whose appearance you are fawning. I have replaced each instance of the the offending word with clover, if you haven't worked it out already.

Pep (The friend of my enemy is my enemy, which point I have made once very recently.)

More concepts invented by the weak.

Pep (You earn respect, not deserve it, as I have argued extremely successfully in a fairly recent thread - and you don't earn it by being weak.)

"Fawning"???? Oh, for clover's sake!!

And a point that **I** have made before is that I have NO intention of getting dragged into this puerile playground brawl, which does NONE of you any credit. The reason that I have dropped out of the undying thread is that I find the behaviour of ALL of you there to be utterly appalling, yourself not excepted.

Dang. I muted a few people, and missed all the drama. Oh wait....that was the point. And why can't I read 75% of this thread?

LOL

Hypocrisy, thy name is Scylla.

Pep (You are part of the "brawl" every time you encourage someone whose behaviour is so far beyond that acceptable in any community.)

Only an absolutist believes that the best response to conflict is to crush the opponent. The whole point of civility is about keeping lines of communication open, in the (sometimes vain) hope that one can be a moderating influence.

Which is, in fact, one of the reasons I am still talking to you, despite your liberal employment of condescension and ad hominem.

Scorched earth has always worked for me.
I have already explained that civility is for the weak.
A pointless exercise on your behalf . . .

Pep ( . . . given your support of the unsupportable.)

And I am explaining why that is a ridiculous attitude. Scorched earth approaches only result in . . . scorched earth.

"Support"? I think I have made my attitude towards what was said in the undying thread reasonably clear.

A cantankerous Welshman once told me that it is possible to like the person, but not the behaviour.

(GOD I wish we didn't have to hash this out again in public!)

You can't place defaming/harassing content which specifically names a person or group anywhere publicly inside SL, including your profile. It can be considered a violation of several of the "Big Six" rules in the Community Standards policy, depending on the specific content.

Profiles can be flagged as "mature", but I believe that only applies to the pictures and text on the first page of your profile, which appears in public searches.

Also, as has been said already, there is NO "freedom of speech" right in SL. SL isn't a US government entity, so the First Amendment protections do not apply.



It is highly unlikely that there was any FIC activity going on; likely several of the people on the region ARed you for it as a group, which tends to get the Linden's attention on the matter. Depending on what you did while in their home, as well as what you said in your profile, the Lindens apparently found your case grievous enough to suspend your account. Also realize that anyone who owns at least 1/2 sim gets Concierge support, which means fairly quick response to tickets and ARs for problems related to their land and management thereof.



Profanity in SL has NOTHING to do with what is and what isn't allowed in a "PG film". Despite the fact that they use US movie rating codes, they use their own definitions for them.

As for why the "F word" is not allowed, there is a time and place for (just about) everything.



I am sure you do. However, it sounds like you were breaking a number of rules, and were looking to break more to get your way.

It would have happened on any region where the owners cared enough to bother. Some places care, some don't, and it doesn't require being buddy-buddy with the Lindens to report you and get you in trouble for it, because you set yourself up to get ganked.

In the regions I manage, you'd likely have gotten ARed and suspended, too, if we felt it was grievous enough to bother.



There is an appeals process outlined in the email they sent you, or in the ToS. However, from the sound of it, you will likely not get anywhere, since it appears you were asking for the suspension.

It means that you don't have to look over your shoulder as you move forward.

You have stated an attitude to which your subsequent behaviour has given the lie.

Possible, but not necessary.

Your choice . . .

Pep ( . . . by encouraging the completely unacceptable, and attempting vainly to substantiate an untenable position.)

Seconded. I am offended - not by the words themselves, but because the person using them so much assumes that it's alright with everyone around them, whether they know the people or not. It's offensive.

Yes, really, this is my point: it demonstrates a completely self-centred attitude, and an utter lack of consideration for anyone else around them. The thing about it that is most offensive is not so much the language itself, but the uncaring selfishness that its use demonstrates.

My subsequent behaviour is completely consistent with some of my most fundamental values.

I have always believed that talking is better than not talking. That demonstrating respect (yes, I'm sorry, THAT word again) and consideration is not merely intrinsically right, but also ultimately more effective than not doing so. That the expression of anger and hatred is self-defeating because it only elicits more of the same. And that absolutist approaches deny the true complexity that underwrites all human interaction.

What, in my view, most fundamentally differentiates the human from the merely animal is the ability to communicate, and all that that entails: the sharing of information, empathy, and understanding. Your Social Darwinism merely brutalizes us: transcending conflict, however imperfectly, and building civil societies and cultures is what has defined us as human since we first started walking upright.

Humanity has succeeded not because we are better than the other species at clubbing our opponents over the head, but rather because we discovered that there were alternate and more productive approaches.

Fixed it for ya!

Pep (You are really naive, you know.)

PS The Romans and Genghis Khan didn't build their empires by inviting their enemies to cheese and wine parties, then organising victim support groups for them after they were conquered.

Hopeful? Yes. "Naive"? No. I am very well aware of how painfully difficult such an approach can be to implement. I not infrequently have the urges to pull out a club myself (and have been known, to my embarrassment, to occasionally succumb to the temptation).

But I'd still rather attempt to be better than we are, than sink to the lowest we are capable of being.