Police Blotter - Bigotry Banned?

Hehe the first time i read it which was awhile back now I got the feeling I still get now. That enforcing the constitution as law as it is on that paper would be total chaos because one paragraph speaks of one thing and then the next paragraph speaks of a basic right to protection from things which can occur due to allowing that "right and freedom".

I think its why there is so much confusion at times over some stuff.

I thought they got rid of their cornfield due to the higher population and the need to make too many of them lol?

Does anyone know if it still exists? I truly want to see it but what I would have to do in order to see this cornfield is well it would require a "white collar SL Crime" and so they need to sell tickets or something to that place for us curious types.

i'm sure that this is "beating a dead horse" but...

Child pornography (at least when it comes to avatars of any size or appearance having "sex" is not happening in SL. There are Virtual Child Pornography laws. And.. for the most part the US law says that Virtual Child Pornography is =not= illegal .. =unless= the "average person" looking at it would think it was actual "real people" or.. a "real child". And certainly avatars in SL are not "so realistic" that anyone (but a complete idiot) would mistake an avatar (child or an adult) for a "real person".

But if it is photorealistic ..that's a different story. But avatars in SL are not photorealistic.. even when they are wearing "photorealistic skins". i've never seen a snapshot in SL and thought "Wow, that looks just like the photographs in my picture books". Have you?

...but i said all that.. basically to say...
that LindenLab's rule about "no virtual child porn" is =not= adhering to US law (like their ban on internet gambling IS following the actual USA law).. but is, instead LL "making up whatever rules it wants to" (as you put it). Same as them making up whatever rule they want about people being allowed (or "not" being allowed) to wear Nazi symbolism.

I just reread The Constitution, for the heck of it... you guys are right... it only protects citizens against restrictions BY THE GOVERNMENT. Says nothing about us restricting each other. Interesting.

Sort of like how you can tour Alcatraz. We could see the cells of the famous griefers, look for grafitti, buy souvenier t-shirts that say "Someone I know went to the Cornfield and all I got was this stupid T-Shirt"

I'm sleepy, forgive me. Mixing up my points sucks, sorry. =)

Legally no company- government or contractor or private- can moderate the free speech of their employees. Free speech is a right. They cannot call the police and have someone locked up for ideas spouted on their property.

The flip side of that (and why it's confusing) is that they CAN sanction people for free speech. They can remove people from their property who disagree with them, they can fire people who disagree with them, they can even call the police and have someone who disagrees with them removed to the border of their property (in some states at least).

What they CANNOT do, is have people locked away or prosecuted by the government for free speech.

We are free from prosecution in the legal system for free speech, unless it is a matter of national security. We are not free from the reactions to and consequences of our free speech.

As for contradictions- most contradictions aren't a contradiction at all- there is a slight language barrier (the constitution was written hundreds of years ago and language evolves more quickly than that) but the concepts are solid as long as you understand the difference s and distinctions between law, common law, government, people and private and public sectors. But... I'll admit it's complex enough that an entire branch of lawyers spends thier lifetimes sorting out the details and understanding the nuances.

Constitutional law rarely applies to the common person- although the Bill of rights is a daily thing that we very much undervalue and misunderstand =)

In the words of one of my favorite professors of all time, "I'll buy that."

SL IS a privately Owned On Line Environment, and is similar to a Chat Room where regulations of this sort pertain. ALL Chat Rooms are subject to the law when it comes to criminal Activities (Child Pornography, gambling Etc.), BUT they CAN set up regulations within the Chat Room that regulate Speech, the courts have already recognized that they do Not have to allow the same rights of free speech we enjoy in the real world.

I should note that what you consider a right in the United States is Definately an indictable offence in Canada. Promoting Intolerance based upon race, religion, politics, gender and/or sexual orientation Can net you heavy Fines and jail Time.

Angel.

I was under the impression that LL banned Nazi imagery outright. They must be going soft.

I believe the ban on Nazi imagery was put in place back when the WWIIers plagued SL (in 2003 and 2004 a number of MMOs closed, including a WWII MMO).

This topic isn't new, just a new assembly of old topics, some in the archive. I'm going to move it to CVF.

hmm, some of these questions have piqued my curiousity.

The telecoms (and power brokers) drew up this odd little distinction (which apparently has huge implications for them) between carriers and providers. And along with that they drew up a huge list of who's responcible for what and what this means and that and long question stort, and follow this quuestion very carefully...

since the communication between avatars takes place IN the wired framework of SL, but also THROUGH it, "Is SL a carrier?" and if it is "Does that constrain their allowed <enforments>"

Here we go again. different time in Second Life history. But same old people causing these types of problems.

this was so without reference and vague i wonder is it refering to anybody at all?

Sorry are you refering to the griefters or my explaining that those doing this type of attack are repeatly doing attacking of this sort?

I was refering to groups that have in the past have done this repeatly.........

Two words: Patriotic Nigras

Frankly, anyone bringing the Nazis into SL in any form (well ok maybe for some VERY private and very specific RP and no I don't have a special peaked cap!) needs a virtual kicking. Which is what they get.

a while back we had alot of issues with thoses types here. What did LLABS do at that time......well

This had better not mean they intend to ban Nazi Uniforms. I do not for one support the Nazi idealism, but to be frank; the uniforms kick ass. They did a huge number of things wrong, but the uniforms were very well designed.

I wouldn't wear them in SL or RL in public unless I was on my way to a fancy dress party or something, but I hope the issues do not get confused here. Wearing something should not be an offense, at least they're wearing /something/.


As for actual idealism, I find it objectionable that people could be singled out in SL for what they believe. Sure, if I believed that all people with dark-skin are inferior (I hasten to point out that I do not) and went around singling them out and being insulting, then I would expect to be banned for that. But it's regular griefing/abuse, that's nothing different.
However, if I believed it, and wanted only to talk to like-minded individuals, then that's freedom of speech. It's weird, it's perverse, but I expect to be able to do it. Just as I speak to people about my love of rock music, or philosophy.

If people want to go around pretending they believe in nazi ideals then whatever, as long as they don't hurt anybody it's fine as far as I'm concerned. The price of freedom of speech is, and always has been, that it isn't just the normal people that get to say what they like. But if everyone in the world were 'normal' then the world wouldn't be such an interesting place!

If it's one of the turkeys I think it was, it's probably more to do with the fact they were using the Nazi symbols/uniform as a griefing tool, I'm surprised he lasted this long.

If LL wants to become similar to a provider and independent of risk from the actions of users, then it has to take the bad with the good and not restrict anything.