Germany and 'that' ban

That is certainly the case frequently enough to make me VERY wary of it, yes. But I don't know that I would go quite so far as you in this. Slander, libel, vicious hate speech, direct incitement to violence, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre . . . I think that there IS a line between what is acceptable and what is hurtful. The tough part is figuring out where it falls.

Particularly if a politician is listening to their wish. One of the many alarming aspects of the last 10 years in the UK has been the government's idée fixe that just about every social ill, or at least anything that upsets the editorial writers of the popular press, can be cured by recourse to the criminal law.

"Something must be done.." people say, and politicians say, "Right ... the people have spoken.. we'll do something and pass a law, no matter how wrongheaded and ineffective, then no one can complain we've done nothing".

I think that is a problem with politicians everywhere, who increasingly make political judgements on the basis of opinion polls and gawd knows what else. There ARE some principled ones, of course . . . but they do seem sadly fewer and fewer.

Those are all examples of someone taking an action with the intent to harm others.

The proposed law which started this thread is about censoring the depictions of violent actions. That's crossing the line.

Growing restrictions on internet use are inevitable in the future. I, for one, support the banning of the depiction or simulation of extreme violence, unless perhaps in humorous cartoon form like 'Itchy and Scratchy'.

Those newbie roadkill sculpts were bad enough!

/me whips off her pants and waves them in salute.

Next thing you know, the German gov't will be rewarding industrious young married women who pop out loads of kids. Wunderbar!

There is also talk of the Italian government wanting to make all internet users' real ID's easily traceable.

It's hard to guess what Linden Lab would do, without knowing the money flow in detail.

Getting rid of digital depictions of child porn is an easy call if Linden Lab gets substantial income from German citizens, and very little overall income from child porn in Second Life. Plus, Linden Lab would not want the reputation of the company that stood up for the free expression rights of child pornographers everywhere.

The monetary question would come down to how much income Linden Lab can expect from violence-free Germans, vs. the income from all of the residents who partake in some sort of violence (combat, art, whatever). I'd have to guess that Linden Lab has much more to lose by becoming violence free. Plus, I just don't see a PR sting from allowing combat and so forth to continue in Second Life. Sure there are the people against violent games, but very few of them are the ones using Second Life anyway, I'd guess. The question is whether the IBMs or universities that Linden Lab courts care about violence, and my guess is that they don't.

Germany has no jurisdiction over a U.S. company without an office in Germany, so criminal liability really isn't a concern. If Germany passes an anti-violent game law and asks the U.S. to cooperate by turning over all U.S. citizens making violent games, do you think the U.S. eagerly complies? Doubtful.

Then SL has nothing to worry about.

Have you been to the Berlin sim, Liepschen?

Nope. Worth it?

Good point. Although someone who slanders or libels might make the argument that he or she is not intending any harm, but merely "speaking the truth."

Yes, but for the love of god, don't go as a furry. Or too tall. Or wearing the wrong kind of tie . . .

Oops, meant to start a new thread, instead replied here.

Well, when they banned gambling, I didn't care so much, because I don't gamble.
When they banned ageplay, well, I don't do that either, so no problem.
I'm not into violence, so this wouldn't bother me.

... but if they come after my sex poseballs, I'm putting up a fight!

But you wouldn't be able to, since violence would have been pre-banned...

The wording "violent acts against human or human-like characters" is so insanely broad that there is nothing Linden Lab could do to make Second Life comply with such a law.

They would simply have to suck it up and deal with the fact the German government thinks Germans are a collective of morons who believe Looney Toons cartoons are documentaries.

No SL for you!

You'll take my sex poseballs when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!

And if she or he runs that as a defense and the jury agrees that that the material complained about was, indeed, true, then it's not slanderous or libelous, at least not in the UK. Aggravated damages if the jury don't agree, as I recall, but truth is a perfectly good defense if the jury buy it.

It's hard to believe that it would be possible to enforce this; as stated, it would encompass Sonic the Hedgehog. I know very little about the German legal system: would this be one of those things (like British Common Law) where it was "tested" in court, and the law effectively defined by actual legal precedent?

And the truth should always be a total defense.

Another good point. Meaning that, if "proven" to be libel, it is de facto "causing harm," whereas if it is the "truth," the "harm" is, I assume, irrelevant . . . or merely a corollary of the "truth" as established in court, and therefore not the responsibility of the person who published or uttered them in the first place . . .

My head is spinning a little . . .

Hmmm. Now we get into deep waters. What about "confidential" truths? What if someone publishes the "truth" about your financial dealings? About your shady past? In SL, the "truth" about your RL would be a violation of the CS, under "disclosure" . . .

Maybe this could be more complicated than it seems?

Over-simplifying, rather, but in the UK, one of the elements of libel is that the material complained about tends to bring the complainant into what they used to call, "hatred, ridicule or contempt" among "right-thinking people" (that is, regardless of whether it's true, do the jury think it's objectionable?). That's the harm caused. If the material is true, though, regardless of the hatred, ridicule or contempt into which it may tend to bring the complainant, then that's a defense.

Look at it this way -- the statement, "X has a conviction for possessing child pornography" is likely to bring him into hatred, ridicule and contempt, whether or not it's true. If it's true, though, it's not libelous.

I'm sure this is an accurate characterization, even if (as you say) a bit oversimplified. I have to confess, though, that it makes little sense to me. If one of the things that defines libel is that it brings the complainant into "hatred, ridicule or contempt," how can it be that it ceases to be libel merely because it is the truth, even while it CONTINUES to bring the complainant into "hatred, ridicule or contempt"?

My cavil here isn't with your explanation: it's with what appears to be the inconsistencies in the law.