Police Blotter - Bigotry Banned?

Ok, before you all start a flame war, and I'm sure that this thread will get locked in about 10 posts...

I saw this in today's Police Blotter:

"Date: Monday, September 10, 2007
Violation: Community Standards: Intolerance
Region: Apollo
Description: Wearing uniform with Nazi symbol and owner of group with Neo-Nazi name
Action taken: Warning issued. "

And this is from the TOS:
"In addition to abiding at all times by the Community Standards, you agree that you shall not: [...] transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;"

So here's my question, and believe me, it's basically an innocent one:

Since LL must adhere to US Law and Regulations re: gambling, child pornography, etc, should it then not also adhere to the US Constitution in that residents should be allowed to wear/sell/use Nazi clothing (yeah it's stupid, but hey...) if they so desire?

OR, since LL can do whatever the heck it wants on its own computers, including banning offensive stuff, why is it then required to follow US Laws?

OR, is it a combination of the two? LL has to follow US Laws AND it can make up whatever rules it wants to, in addition to US Laws? I'm thinking it's this last option, but for some reason, I just don't feel like it's right for LL to make "community" decisions on what's right, what's wrong, and what's "broadly offensive." (Yeah, here we go again...)

Its a combination.

They are REQUIRED to follow the restrictions on Gambling even though they are a private company and its their virtual space.

They are ABLE to deny certain unpleasant aspects of free speech becuase they are a private company and this is their virtual space.

In this case, they can claim to be following the Law from several European Countries, where Nazi Symbolism is forbidden.

PICKERING: Have you no morals, man?
DOOLITTLE: Can't afford them, Governor.

(from Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw)

* * * * *

It's not a matter of rights, strictly speaking. It's a business. Still.

I think the question is: which cutting edge social experiment shall we test, at the cost of risking the entire grid?

Not sexual ageplay, and not 'virtual' gambling, that's for sure.

I suppose all the truly cutting edge social questions will be sounded out in opensourced 3d lands, which will survive or be ordered shut down on a case by case, government by government basis.

The right to free speech generaly does not extend onto private property.

i`d say "hang them" but then we`d have a dictatorship

Going out on a limb here, cause I'm not a legal expert....

US Laws & Regulations are things that all US citizens, buisnesses, and those doing buisness in the US must adhere to. (These apply to Linden Lab).

The Consitution is a document that protects US Citizens from the Government, and limits the enforcement of laws to those that adhere to the consitution.

Linden Lab is not an arm of the US government. Therefore, consitutional protections dont apply between Linden Lab & its customers.

Hopefuly I'm articulating this right But essentially, since Linden Lab is a private entity, it is not bound by the constitution to provide freedom of speech to its customers.

Edited to add: Wikipedia puts it much more succinctly:

The consitution is a set of rules and principles that the *government* must follow.

Ordinary rules & regulations apply to its citizens.

IN a word, no. As I understand it, there is no presumption of protected speech from a service provider. Just as other transmmission mediums can make rules and regulations about what can an can't be on their medium, so LL can do the same.

Mari

"Bigotry Banned" sounds a lot better than "Bigotry Warned", but the latter has the benefit of accuracy.

Yeah yeah...

well wait - I can spin this

Bigotry IS banned


its the Bigots that were warned.

Slow day at work today, Punkin'?

Travis hit the nail on the head. The Constitution protects us from our government, not from each other. The laws and regulations of the Nation and various states protect us from both the government and each other - and in some cases ourselves (they don't always do so effectively, but that's another argument). LL is not the US government, so you have no constitutional protections, including protected free speech. Presumably, LL could restrict religion, control the presses (at least within SL and these forums) and prohibit any manner of expression if it wanted, although those are pretty unlikely scenarios.

The fascinating issue for dweebs like me is where, for the purposes of free expression, the government ends and the private sector begins. Can the government restrict it's employees from professing unpopular beliefs? Where can free speech be restricted by the government? What about government contractors? Are their ties close enough to the government that they are quasi-governmental agencies? Schools? Public Utility Districts? Federal grant money recipients?

Sigh. Why is this interesting to me? I may be the most boring person on earth.

The Arch, Pup and Kid nailed it: It's their playground, their rules, no Constitutional involvment, what's left of it at least.

Hehe ever heard of Halliburton?

Interesting thought though... if the Constitution exists to protect us from the Government, then are government employees seen as citizens, or employees? I know how the US Military feels (did you know that Military employees aren't allowed to appear at war protests even OUT of uniform?) but I wonder how the average Jane Doe secretary in the bowels of the Capitol Building is viewed...

It is option 3: LL is obliged to obey US law because it is a US corporation operating on US territory. AND it can choose to make its own additional rules within its own virtual domain.

I think the Nazi-regalia thing was singled out because of the freight of history. Such displays are sure-fire hot-button acts guaranteed to enrage a large part of the SL population and get very unflattering stories about SL on the evening news. Also, for their part, I think it is safe to say the people strutting around and making those displays are doing it mainly to spite and enrage other people by making a spectacle of their neurotic anger and alienation. From LL's point of view, it is very disruptive and very bad for LL, SL, and 99.9% of its Residents, and should be given the same consideration as someone claiming his political convictions require him to shout Fire! in crowded theaters. Don't like it, but can't say I blame them.

Personally, I would prefer letting them be in SL - but declare them fair game for griefing by one and all. What fun that could be...

BTW, the startlingly mild penalties described in the police blotter appear to be merely preliminary actions. I've seen several cases of avatars who were "warned," or given a day or two suspension according to the police blotter, and were never to be found in Search again.

I have. I doubt Halliburton wants its employees protesting the war. Can it prevent them from doing so? I have no idea if it even tries, but it's an interesting issue. Military members can't protest the war, and I suspect the government makes some argument about national security or the morale and discipline of the troops overriding individual rights to justify that rule (I'm not saying it's a good or bad rule, just guessing how it would be justified). The average Jane Doe secretary probably can protest, but can she hang up anti-war posters in her cubicle at work? Does it make a difference if she works at the Pentagon or if she works for the IRS? What if she's a civilian employee of the military?

Actually with regard to those

1) No, although they have as much right as any other company to hire/fire people for "poor work" or some other smaller charge to remove an embarrassment.
2) Only in matters of national security.
3) What about 'em?
4) No. They're contractors.
5) Generally government run (although on a state or town level) iirc so follow the same rules as any government building.
6) What about 'em?
7) What about 'em?

Freedom of speech clause dictates that the government is not allowed to prosecute for an opinion. It is a limitation, a check, a balance on the government- not on the people. Private businesses can (and do) persecute for opinions except where it's explicitly legislated against (discrimination laws etc). There's no law against firing an employee for showing up and calling the government names or burning a flag- it's looked down on, but it's perfectly within their rights.

There's no cross over into the private sector outside of common courtesy and societal pressures. The government refers to the Legislature, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch- not the people involved in each. No law shall be made (legislative) or enforced (judicial)- not even with the permission of the executive (veto etc) except in the case of national security- and let me tell you you do NOT want to know how badly your basic rights are infringed on by the patriot act (which I won't go into further for fear of sparking a political debate- suffice to say the American people gave up a ton of liberty for an illusion of safety without even realizing it was gone.)

Government as an entity rather than government employees =)

So SL has a Guantanamo Bay now?

No, Halliburton cannot forcibly prevent their employees from protesting the war- although if it's done on company time, they can cite company policy and remove them or if you make a particular ass of yourself, they can trump up a charge against your work. Then again to forcibly prevent people from doing something you have to have the power of enforcement. So technically- they can't, but realistically they certainly can.

Posters and the such are generally covered by company policy and most companies demand that employees keep business areas clear of inflammatory items and will fire you if you don't comply. They can't force you to keep your home free fo them though =D

Military is a whole different kettle of fish, that I'm not clear on though.

Constitution is like a standard "operating" procedure but its not law so its kind of telling you what your basic freedoms are. Laws on the other hand are things that are created to enforce things. There is no law that says you can't wear those uniforms or laws that say the opposite and that it has to be allowed. If that makes any sense. Its kind like a basic right that everyone has, but at the same time its like saying "i don't want people to drink and smoke in my house" when linden Labs says none of that stuff on "our servers". There is no law that says smoking or drinking are illegal in houses but its a guy saying in his space he doesn't want certain things to happen which in and of itself is a right.

So LL has the right to make its own rules as long as they dont break laws, but when it comes to constituion since LL is a private entity they dont ahve to abide by all parts especially when things like that clash. The US constitution is a bit odd. One one side it says everyone has a right to be safe and not held up to bigotry and racism and we are all equal at the same time it says people have a right to say and wear what they want. Its like an oxymoron and you can't have both existing in the same place at the same time because it doesn't work. If a certain race or cutlture has a right not to experience some kind of bigotry or oppression or racial hatred then it goes to follow you can't allow certain types of things to be displayed or done, but at the same time that limits another gruops freedoms.

so in one way they are trying to prevent certain types of things and the only way to do that is to not allow certain things to happen which might or could result in griefing eg: the natzi thing. There are people who are jews in this game who belong to groups for just jews and there are little synagogues mock ups etc around. If you allow these groups that preach anti this and anit that then you allow for the ability of a gruop to form with the sole purpose of driving a certain group of people (in this case jews) nuts inside second life. Where do you stop? at the chicken or the egg? lol

It's called The Cornfield...

Oryx,

I think there are a probably lot of things that you can get warned and/or AR'ed for in SL that don't necessarily jibe with the US Constitution in Real Life, just as there are things that happen every day in SL that would be forbidden or impossible to get away with in RL (Maybe land-bot thievery could be an example).

What are those approximately 6 cardinal rules that the web page makes you swear to when you open an account? If memory serves, doesn't a Nazi symbol flagrantly violate at least several of them?

I admit I enjoy frank discussions of issues like this. It's a shame that they usually do degenerate into flame wars.

-Avion

Technically, the constitution is the primary law that ALL other laws (Federal, State and Local) must follow. All other laws rules and actions are held up to the constitution's rules and kept if they comply and thrown out if they do not.

I highly recommend reading it- it's not actually very long (compared to say the tax code) but it contains all the basics of American law.

Halliburton is a government contractor. In your previous post you drew a distinction between government contractors and quasi-governmental agencies. Is this similar to the sufficient minimum contacts test for jurisdiction in that if a contractor exists solely for the purpose of contracting with the government it's contacts with the government require it to follow the government's guidelines for allowing freedom of expression? The examples given in my first post (schools, PUD's, etc) are of quasi-governmental agencies.

Companies and the government trumping up reasons to fire someone who has become a problem is a red herring. Of course they do that, but that's not a legal issue. It's what happens in real life application. The issue is what they are required to do, legally.

In my previous question about where the government can restrict speech, I was unclear. I meant, geographically, where can they. You aren't allowed to march through the administrative areas of a governmental office, but you can certainly protest in the town square. Somewhere in between the two is the line.

I'll be the first to admit that Con Law was never my strongest subject. I do find it interesting, though. I got out of a speeding ticket on a constitutional argument once, but I'm pretty sure that it was because I was a big enough PITA that the judge just let me go so I would shut up.