SL Resident Blacklists

Is it legal to publish a blacklist of SL resident names on a resident run website like this (short) one?:

http://www.secondlifeplayer.com/bankofsl/blacklist.htm

Some of the offenses are quite diverse (tracking residents, insult, camping bot, etc.). None of them seem to include IP infringers, which I would expect to be a large percentage. This (SL banking!?) site also appears to be set up from Germany, so maybe location has some legal bearing?

It appears to be abandoned. And yes, unfortunately, it's 'legal' to do that. It's that whole freedom of speech thing.

Popular and HUGE landscape designer Lillith Heart is on there for harrassment. oh please. that's nothing more than a personal vendetta list.

SL blacklist are a waste of time since you can always make a new account in seconds.

The domain name itself appears to be in violation of the SL trademarking guidelines.

I don't think publishing avatar names on a third party website is against the TOS...how can it be? The TOS apply only to SL itself.

However, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of the list. Lilith Heart, for example, is a hugely successful and popular merchant (landscaping and plants). I can't imagine her making a camping bot that steals others' money.

It is legal, but keep in mind that many of these lists are mostly maintained by individuals (residents), meaning the objectivity might not be as formal as official people (LL etc) would do on residents.
Keep an eye out for personal vendetta's, subjective situations, where a resident might be blacklisted on purpose, without doing a real offence. Stating he/she did do so, is NOT proof at all.
Situations can be altered (incl. chat logs, and pictures).
I've seen it happen quite often, even whitnessed it from a short distance.

Only LL can see what really happend (incl what has been rezzed, transferred etc.. IM logs too, and public chat logs, locations one visited etc etc etc etc)

since banks are outlawed in SL isnt that page in itself belonging on its own list?

What a horrible list, I am not even on it!

The idea isn't illegal per se.

You open yourself up, however, to libel liability if you post anything that is inaccurate, whether you intended to or whether it was an accident. So it's a dangerous proposition to do legally, unless you're a trained journalist and apply some journalistic standards to it involving your fact-checking and procedures to assure accuracy.

BanLink has been in operation for 2 years now, and is a free resident-ran blacklist.

(You can find it here: http://www.slbanlink.com).

BanLink is a bit unique in its approach, however - because while any subscriber can issue a ban for any reason they wish (even if its for having green hair) - bans are honored based upon the contents of the complaint itself, and the trustworthyness of the location issuing the ban.

BanLink currently has over 500 venues that subscribe - and each venue gets to pick and choose which other venues they wish to honor bans from. The net result is a custom-generated banlist based upon each venue's 'trust' selections.

There's also a built-in dispute mechanism - so folks can log their side of the story if they feel that they've been banned unjustly.

The point of BanLink is to promote accountability - not just for griefers causing trouble, but for venues issuing bans as well. While the system is imperfect, it does seem to make a difference for those who subscribe.

As far as legality, BanLink is a bit like Twitter meets a BanList. While the Twitter company itself may not be liable for the contents of folks 'tweets' - those tweeting may indeed be liable for what they post about others, especially if its untrue. BanLink is no different, and folks are strongly encouraged to use the service responsibly.

A clear and obvious oversight.

'zactly correct. LL can't and won't even attempt ta regulate what happens onna 3rd party site.

I wasn't really thinking LL would factor into this at all. My question was more along the line of "legal" as defined (or not) by the US Constitutional Ammendments and specifically the right to privacy, and the right to publicity.

http://netsecurity.about.com/od/newsandeditorial1/a/aaprivacyrights.htm
http://www.publaw.com/rightpriv.html

Suppose someone published a blacklist with peoples SL avatar names, SL dirty laundry, thier RL names, RL photos, addresses, phone numbers, etc.? How far can a blacklist go before peoples basic rights start to get trampled upon and the list maker is held liable for the damages?

"sucks money out of camping-pads" lolol

If it has any more information than what is available in my profile, my public chat, my forum posts, and anything else I publish on the internet under my avatar name... It's too far. Otherwise... All my SL dirty laundry is already out there... Do with it whatever you want. (=_=)y

Is it legal. Well unless its slander. But be aware, there have been cases won regarding slander inworld. Crossing continents and legal systems. So be aware that if you slander a CEO or somebody with some power, they can sue you. Trust me, I know this first hand from a friend of mine. Think you are safe because you are hidden under a SL name and live in a different country. Not a chance.


And I have to ask about Lilith, that's crap. She has bent over backwards to help me every time I asked. And we were neighbors way back in the day.

* the only reason i used the 'don't know who you are talking to' is because that is so true. And in the case of a friend of mine, he is a CEO of a large corporation, and has a team of lawyers on hand. So really think before you leap. You really have no clue who you are talking to...or slandering for that matter.

What are they going to do in a different country? Send Interpol after me? Issue a warrant to the FBI? Seize my assets? /me rolls on the floor in laughter.

If I state it as my opinion not as fact, then not much can be done legally. If they are in the public eye, not much can be done legally. If it is the truth not much can be done legally. Thank God for the First Amendment.

Although I've never had a place large enough or harassed enough to actually require the use of banlink, from what I've heard it is quite successful and other than a few outspoken critics (who mainly dislike the entire concept more than banlink itself) it is met with well regard. Travis I will admit though that it was a lot more fun back before you restricted records viewing to only your own (for non subscribers at least) since some of the ban reasons and counter comments were quite entertaining.

This is really a rehash of RBL/DNSBL debates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL#Criticisms

- and stems from a basic problem of governance (or lack thereof). Blacklists are really nothing more than a means of shifting control over content to a third party, presumptively because said third party "knows better."


As a solution to griefing, spamming, or any other malapropism ending in -ing, these tend to be ineffective at fixing the basic problem, and far more effective at *annoying innocent users*. Not always, though.


There are a few responsible blacklists in circulation that have decent reputations. The important factor of them is not making it personal (ie. naming names, posting supposed "offenses" by said names) and offering reasonable policing of their content.

Otherwise, the "lists of users I hate" approach should just be frowned upon.

Well you just keep telling yourself that, even if it has no basis in reality. Yeah, if it is a severe case of slander, then yes, they will arrest you and throw you in jail. There is precident for this, look it up, you are online.

In another country you may be right, but in America, the truth is always a defense. If it isn't please provide documentation. Because you are making the claim that people have been jailed for stating the truth. Jerry Falwell couldn't even win a civil case when Larry Flynt said Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

"n Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (198, the United States Supreme Court held, voting 8-0, that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them unless they can show that the statements that gave rise to the distress were false and that the person that made those statements knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in making the statements"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Where am I making the claim that people are being jailed for telling the truth. As you will note, I used the word slander, well in every instance. Slander isn't the truth.

I really find it hard to believe you missed the huge cases of slander against things like Myspace, facebook, this is hot news. There are numerous cases involving internet slander going on. And yes I know of a few involving Secondlife. I don't really think my friend would appreciate my telling details. But it was severe, not just calling names, this was quite an extreme.

EDIT: The question in this post asked if it is legal to compile a list of people that didn't like. A black list. I just want to say that in the instances of slander, then no, it is not legal. And the Lindens in the past have released complete information of users under court order. And there are international laws in place to protect you against slander. So yes, there is also legal precident to back this. I really can't control your understanding of the law. i just wanted to point out the fact that just because you hide behind a legal alias, being your avatar, you still are legally held to the laws of America. This is clearly explained in the TOS. That being the company, Linden Labs, is located in California, and it and all it's members must abide by california state law...period.

Links? Again you make the claim people are jailed for statements. In Canada, yes, you are not free but subjects. Your speech is limited. Please cite American cases where the truth is/was not a defense.

Show me a case of an American being jailed for slander? It is a civil matter in the States, not a criminal one.

Many times people cry "slander" and it really is the truth. My original statement was that if it is the truth then not much can be done. You disputed this.

Again, I ask you for links.

It doesn't matter if I am living in canada, gawd argentina, whatever, legally I am a resident of california when I am logged in, bottom line. If you want 'proof' that you can legally be held responsable for things on the grid, surf over to the 'my sexgen won't work' string and read up. I am done, that's it. I am a professional of 35 years old, university educated, maybe I really don't have the time or patience here to educate you on international laws.

EDIT: k i have to ask one more thing? Canadians are not free but subjects? Of whom and what exactally. I wuld argue that Canadians have more legal rights than Americans. Enough said, really, I won't be returning this post.

Namssor Daquerre
HoneyBear Lilliehook
3Ring Binder
Destiny Niles
Lindal Kidd
say Moo
Toy LaFollette
poopmaster Oh
Amity Slade
Travis Lambert
Chris Norse
Saucey Barbecue
Dah Oh
Imnotgoing Sideways
Chris Norse (again)
Jeffrey Gomez
Gordon Wendt
Atom Burma
and Chris Norse