Did anyone see this guy?

Oh my! *laughs* I'm sorry. I know many are upset over this article, but I think it's funny! A typical male newbs first day in SL. Heck, even I could tell it was supposed to be a humerous piece just by the:

"In fact, when I tried to talk to a dude who looked just like the Predator, he wouldn't even say hello. This may be because I opened with "Dude, congratulations. You're the biggest dork in Second Life." "

Lighten up guys. I'm sure if he truly wanted to insult everyone or anyone here, he could have found a much better way of doing it.

Hey Gillian,

Contact me in sl, I have about 3 folders with lots of clothes which I try to give away to guys just coming in. Many of these clothes are really nice, plus I'll throw in some jewelry too.

It would seem to me that the residents of Second Life are now a large enough group in number to make a difference in this or any world.

Therefore, why not respond to TIME magazine by emailing or writing and voicing your displeasure with this article and the irresponsible behavior of this particular journalist.

Second Life has enjoyed favorable publicity from reputable journalists all over the world for over 3 years. The article was utter rubbish and nothing but the self *stroking* of a sad little man who spent no time doing research or examining his topic.

Not only is his writing and behavior so obviously infantile, this article was a pointed attack at a world so many of us hold dear and count on for part of or in some cases much of a daily living.

I would think that TIME magazine would think twice before publishing an article that needs to repeat the word penis so many times in the course of so few paragraphs. I for one plan on telling them that among a few other things.

I would hope that many of you do the same and realize 2 million is not only a number but provides us with a strength in that number.

Join me in voicing your displeasure to the Editors of TIME.

Have a wonderful Holiday Season.
With love to all, Baccara

Well... I use Microsoft products besides SL, and nonetheless I can laugh about an overdrawn satire making fun of this company in a mischivous way. I also heartily laughed about this article, because - overdrawn and narrow-sighted as it may be (satire always is) - it contained a lot of little truths, presented in a humorous way.

I know it's hard to tolerate if someone seems to insult your no. 1 hobby, but this guy clearly wrote with a winking eye. One should always be able to laugh about oneself. Even if it was meant as a serious review - so what? It's just one person's opinion, and luckily most of us live in countries where everyone is allowed to speak their mind.

It's true, SL is not only a sex den. But... Amsterdam isn't all about sex and drugs too, nonetheless that's what attracts all the tourists. If you say "Amsterdam", the listener will associate it with "red light districts" and "legal cannabis products". Without all the shady places full of sex-hungry gender-bending furry gothic gorean ageplayers, SL wouldn't have been successful.

Btw... I understood "aggressively heterosexual" the way the author likely meant it: the heterosexual male SL resident doesn't visit a club or bar to talk about politics. He's likely there for one reason only, and that doesn't involve a chat with other males (and yes, I know this is overdrawn and possibly untrue in 5% of all cases). The countless lesbians in SL are agressively homosexual (if we leave out their RL gender) as well and won't likely be interested in a chat with males while partner-stalking in a club.

The fact that I picked a 1960's example is hardly relevant. I only went with that because it's one of the most famous and well known stories about journalism in history. It doesn't matter whether it happened 40 years ago or 40 minutes ago; it still illustrates the point.

The concept (and the law) is no different now than it was then, but if you really need a modern example in order to understand, there are thousands. Let's start with some easy ones. Do you really think all those Brangelina articles and Federspears articles have the consent of Brad & Angelina or Britney & Kevin? How about all the trash everyone writes about Paris Hiltion? You think she really stamps her golden seal of approval on that stuff? Come on.

Or how about all the articles that point out everything going wrong in Iraq? They all mention George Bush by name, and Donald Rumsfeld, and a ton of other people. You think they have to ask permission every time?

That's not how it works. Journalists have free reign to print anything they want. That's the very foundation of living in a free country.

Again, if you feel you've been slandered by a journalist or anyone else, you have the right to challenge them in civil court.

There's no law that says they can't print your name without your approval though. Again, that just ain't how it works.

when was this guy roaming... I think I might've been the guy in the pred suit O.o;

-was playing with the sound system when some people were trying to talk to him, so.. yea. busy ^^;;; -

No, not correct at all.

Publications in the US are broadly classified as either commercial (advertising, fiction, etc.) or editorial (newsworthy publications, documentaries, etc.) Editorial items -- including Joel Stein's article -- are protected speech under the constitution and do not require any subject's "expressed oral or written consent".

Unlike freedom of expression, the right to privacy is not guaranteed by the US constitution. While there are state and federal laws protecting privacy, in most cases free speech provisions trump them.

For editorial publications, the relevant case law is Arrington v. New York Times Co, 433 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980), modified, 55 N.Y.2d 433 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1146 (1983).

Specifically regarding the phrase "do not allow publication" above, (in the US) a publication cannot be disallowed except for extreme circumstances (such as damage to national security). Not allowing publication is technically known as "prior restraint" and is a severe form of censorship. Generally, any publication is allowed but an "injured" party may then seek relief (through lawsuits, etc.) after-the-fact. See: Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539.

-peekay

Joel Stein is a hysterically funny writer. This was a spot on article.

Hey Ricardo I am just fine now. In fact, I might be a little too much of a fashionista. It took me all of a week to realize that ugly isn't pretty in SL

Yes, things quietened down enough here for me to read it .. very funny.

Gillian .. what do you know of ugly? <swoon>

I know its out there, but this is a very big world, and there is enough to it that one can miss all that. I'm on SL nearly every day, for a few hours each time. While much of it is spent either on my home land, I do a fair amount of exploring. It is very rare that I end up around sexual content in SL. So it always seems odd when I hear people talkikng about all the sex on Second Life, when there is just so much more to see and do other than click on each others' parts!

Mari

Agreed totally Mari, shame that the reviewer didn't have http://www.gabrielguyer.com/slparksandrec/ which I've added to my profile in-game now to save my opening my browser everytime I speak with newbies about what there is to see.

I thought it was funny. It was also funny that the guy didn't realize that Predator's failure to respond isn't unusual in SL, and it's not rude -- it's just a matter of life since folks can step away from the keyboard or be busy with other stuff and not even see the comment.

SL is also, well, a little more like France, where if a guy walks up to a local and behaves with poor manners, they very politely ignore him so he can realize is faux pas and try again. A point lost on most Americans (like me, having learned the hard way).

Being ignored is considered very rude in America -- probably in UK too. But it's not a universal, and definitely doesn't apply to SL.

And what's so bad about newbiew hair? (Says the newbie -- I guess I need to get out more & do some shopping!)

Well if you can manage to get noob hair to not have sideburns or mullet-like tendencies, you're way ahead of where I was Then again, I am not a fan of the so called "hoochie hair" either (no flames please - this does not imply that the lady or gentleman wearing said hair is in fact a hoochie)

And thank you, Bilbo, you are too kind

great article! yeah....what IS it with all the "Hun'ning!" !!

For the codes and laws, no it's not in the constitution. You've interpreted it that I expect it guaranteed me by those statutes, but you do realize there are hundreds of laws and codes NOT in the constitution right? Though it's implied in the penumbras, the statutes have changed to represent it fully.

As for the case you quoted, the name of the man wasn't used, just his photograph. MAJOR difference in the realm of reporting. While I never said a thing about photo's, I said names. Names are not allowed. For one thing, a big argument is that while a picture only shows the face of someone that would only be recognizable to others that know them, while a name published with or without picture especially to publications that can reach beyond localities can inhibit that person's daily life, especially when used disparigingly. Secondly, when a photo is used, it has to be deemed of 'public interest'.

I suggest taking a look through recent lawsuits through invasion of privacy and the four torts that come along with it. They are not clearly defined which allows for interpretation, in which people have successfully used thier names in conjunction with news stories.

It's quite a hot button debate because it's walking the balancing act of 'freedom of the press' and 'right to privacy', but currently almost all states contain these statutes or some form of them.

funny article? yes.
spot on? in some areas

but anyone who reads it will come to the conclusion that SL is just another place to whack yer "mole" so to speak. why did he zoom in on the sex? yes he mentioned in three worded sentences about malls and such, but he was more focused on the sex.

is this a male thing?

Hi Seola,

List one *single* US case law prohibiting editorial (newsworthy) use of a person's name, not relating to national security issues or side issues (property intrusion, misappropriation, etc.)

Just one.

-peekay

Where is this mysterious person this journalist interacted with? Why doesn't she post on the forum?

Does she even exist?

Just a thought.

Seola- I love your argument but Peekay is right. If you do something newsworthy in the real world a journalist can use your name. If, for example, you are arrested for this or for that, or you sell your house, or do anything public, a journalist can use your name. I doubt Mel Gibson or Michael Richards would have given permission for all those articles about them over the last few months.

If you've not done anything, and a journalist interviews you for a story, finding out how you feel about something, etc., then they will ask for permission to use your name. I would guess that this journalist asked his guide for permission, which is why hers is the only name (and her real name too) in the story.

Persephone, I'm thinking that the guide hasn't responded because she hasn't read this. I think it's a minority of SL users that actually come here to the forums, let alone dig through to the end of a thread. I read these forums less and less frequently because while there's a lot of positive energy here, there's also a lot of grousing and complaining and the calling for people's heads on platters.

For the record, I thought the article was funny, and though it did poke some fun at SL behaviors, I thought it was mostly poking fun at his ineptitude and the goofy persona he's created as his editorial voice. The article's audience was Mom and Pop middle America; people who still read Time or Newsweek or whatever magazine it came from. It was for a general audience, not for SL users who know better. I'm a big fan of SL and I was amused by the article.

I often fear that our society is becoming so touchy (and so litigious) that we're losing our sense of humor. SL is a great place, you know it and I know it, (I'll bet this writer knows it now too and I'll bet he's addicted to it too). What else matters?

Thanks for Listening,
Jimbo

If my understanding is correct public grounds is public records. Private grounds is private records. This includes virtual or physical. The only time this does not apply is in criminal cases where "victim(s)' can be protected long enough to allow them to assist in investigations and and/or recover from the initial shock of the ordeal. Now as this relates to Sl while it is an "open registration" this is NOT a democracy and noone voted on the base rules of SL. So Linden Labs according to thier TOS could file for slander (maybe more?) for documenting bad information from the article. Sl became a private ground when they required a password and therefore controls the information flowing in and out. Course they could (as many do) turn a blind cheek figuring he just gave them a freebie promo and it technically does not hurt SL buisness.

After reading the article though he is right in his hetrosexual view if in that many male avatars get treated differently then females. It's a society thing though not hardline. It is 100 times easier to get around in SL as a female then a male as I have made both and seen results from both. Does this mean that humans, gors, and furries all do it. NO..but do enough..yes. Does that mean females have the easy life no. I have one word for you TROLLS!

I do however think he had to much of the one topic on his mind. By the way does anyone think "Bert and Ernie" when you see his avatar and him in that one picture.

I'm thinking that since I said the 4 torts of right to privacy and that I said that cases have been argued UNDER that law... that would be those law... I also explained that they are vague enough that people have argued them under the law, though as the torts were passed, was not the initial intention, it can still be applicable.

Yes and no. There is also some issues with right to celebrity laws. If you are arrested or sell your house, it's a matter of public record and your name can be used. If you submit your name in a rape case, your name can technically be used if a judge has not entered a separate gag order, and privacy order (most don't anyways due to ethical issues), there's a difference though in selling a house, getting married, etc. than being printed about your actions in a virtual world where there is no protection, due to SL being privately held.

But you've also argued my side too, as for saying when a journalist interviews and asks for permission. I'm not saying he didn't ask her permission, BUT my point being that he could have easily said <insert Predator mans SL name here> was a complete and utter jerk and was mean and hateful to those around him... and there's nothing to stop that. That was my point, because SL holds the rights to everything you do in SL and with thier blessing for an article can use your name the way they want to, regardless.

And all this has actually diverted my real question though.. lol.

How would you handle a rude journalist in the virtual world knowing they can do what they want with your SL name? Would you simply say 'Thank you for your interest but I'm extremely busy.'? Would you create a scene anyways and see how far the journalist would go?

First of all, no one can be held liable for writing that someone is a jerk, or someone is rude, etc. These are "opinions", and opinions are protected as free speech.

So you can publish editorial articles about "that rude jerk Peekay" all you want, and I can't do anything about it. Such is life.

One can, however, be held liable by writing negative "facts" about a person without being able to establish the truth behind those facts. That's called libel. Facts are different from opinions. So if the Times guy had written "I saw Peekay stole L$2000 from a baby avatar" in his article, then I could sue him provided the facts are to the contrary.

The closest thing in tort law regarding media privacy is something called "appropriation". Appropriation means that one cannot use someones name or image (picture) without that's persons consent for commercial benefit.

The key phrase here is "for commercial benefit". News articles (including the Times article) are considered "editorial" -- not commercial -- and therefore immune from misappropriation claims. That's what the Arrington v. New York Times Co case decided.

If someone rude comes up to you and starts asking questions, just walk away. The end.

-peekay

I read it.
I found it Typical of the sort of Coverage SL was getting in the media a Year, to 18 months ago, where someone has come in simply looking for the freak value, so he would have an article to Pad out the latest Issue.
As usual, it lacked scope, Depth, and skill in writing, but the REAL problem Is, Media Coverage of SL, and it's Potenialities has reached a MUCH higher level in the last year and a Half. Business Week, Reuters, Even Local Papers like the Vancouver Sun have written Truely In-Depth and Well Researched articles, and series of Articles on All Facets of SL from it's social Evolution, to the Phenominal Business opportunities, and creative potentials.
Really, this articles tone of Schoolroom Giggling is beneath the kind of reporting that is being done now.
Had the author put more than One afternoons work into researching his article he would have Not only Known of reuters presence in SL, as he mentions, But he would have been Aware of the Kind of Coverage Reuters was Giving SL.
18 months ago, there was an excuse for this kind of writing. SL was an alien world to the RL Journalists. It was a concept that was Too New, and Too freakish, and they Initially treated it as such. It can be forgiven because no one had ever seen anything Like SL before, and they really didn't know what to make of it. But Now, 18 months, and half a Million Residents Later, The RL Medias Knowledge of SL and it's residents has grown in scope and sophistication. They have Seen the artistry. They have seen the Money to be Made. They have seen the RL corporate world begin to take SL seriously as a Potential Market share. ALL this is a Matter of Public Record, So, when a Journalist turns in an article as Poorly researched as this one obviously was, It's hardly worth taking note of.

I would say Shame on Time for Publishing it, Not because it attempted to Paint SL in a negative light, People have done that before, and it's No Big Deal, But because Even if you allowed that the writer was Ignorant of SL, Time certainly could not be. The writers obvious lack of research into his subject should have been obvious to Times Editors. And Frankly, this is Not the Calbre of Reporting i have seen, and come to expect from Time.
This article is Very Out of Date, Not because of what it said, but because of HOW the author Chose to say it. In comparison to what is already out there, it's Shoddy workmanship, and i don't think anyone will Buy it.

Angel.