Free Speech Resources: National Coalition For Sexual Freedom and the ACLU

Oh, absolutely I have to abide by terms I agree with. But if they've arbitrarily changed the terms without notice or negotiation after collecting my money, it also means I have remedies if they try to enforce those new terms at a cost to the assets they've exchanged for that money. I may not have majored in law in school, but I have done my homework in quite a few cases hypothetical and real.

What they have done is stated unilateral changes to the terms without giving me any chance to renegotiate or recoup losses.

It's a game, it isn't just a game, it's only a game, it's more than a game...if Linden Labs can't get it straight whether their product is a game or not, then what authority do you have to make a definitive claim? Personally I believe the courts will make that argument moot by simply examining the business transactions and assets contained therein, many of which Linden Labs themselves have given value to.

If you say so. I'm actually intent on this for rights of free expression, but money talks, doesn't it? Our freedom to create content was valuable to LL until bigger money interests superceded them, after all. Because I don't really want their money, I will be perfectly happy drawing public attention to them instead.


You may question all you like, but I wouldn't expect them to answer on your account anymore than I feel the need to. You can read it in the papers.

So basically you want to stir up trouble, and ultimately create so much chaos that Second Life gets closed down or bankrupt because of all the lawsuits and attention it's attracting, thus ruining it for the thousands of us who are quite happy with a few restrictions that don't really affect us in the slightest.

After all, your principle is more important than Second Life itself?

I hope you will be proud of yourself when we try to log on one day and find a big 'closed' sign hanging on the login page.

Broccoli

Yes, actually Broccoli, standing up for the thousands of land and sim owners suddenly being threatened by LL for following LL's own community standards IS important,
whether you beleive it not, banning all sex from SL will kill SL anyways.

Why?

Numbers mean EVERYTHING to LL,
if the numbers die, so do the corporate sponserships, and political headquarters,
if the corporate and political leave, and the numbers are dead, there is no money, so they have to start firing lindens/programmers/etc, eventually, leaving them with so few estate owners, that they have to shut down their building in san fran all together, and BAM, second life dies.
Not because of law suits, because of short sightedness, and banning the majority of their "money players".

You make a good point, one for which there should be a legal precedent set, since the company in question's major marketing point has been the freedom of expression in development and ownership of user content.

EDIT: Actually Broccoli, I don't want the Linden's money, I don't want any money except that which I earn doing what I enjoy doing and others enjoy seeing and having. I do want LL to rethink their course of action, but they aren't going to do that if they don't hear a voice they can respect. Someone who may cost them in public relations and/or profits is someone they may fail to hear, and so they may respect the voice of a judge and jury.

I am shooting from the hip here. I am an attorney but I have not reviewed the entire decision, just pieces of it quoted by a SL newspaper. My intitial understanding is that Mr. Oh's analysis is quite correct. The only thing I would correct is that theTOS is total BS and means nothing to **THIS COURT AT THIS POINT OF TIME FOR RULING ON THIS MOTION.**

In other words, thelitigation proceeds, Phil Rosendale is NOT out of the case and the court can, at is discretion, make a ruling on the broader issues of TOS at a later time.

But as a private company, they decide what freedom to allow. Just like a retail store can and will ask someone to leave who is wearing a FU t-shirt. Doesn't mean the person can't wear it, they just can't wear it on the store's property.

I agree, they can make their house rules prior to entering into a cash transaction with a customer. They can also take a customer's cash and then turn the terms of service into a moving target, and arbitrarily revoke the service, pocketing the cash and ruining the investment. A civil court would consider that to be cheating the customer.

Now I could phrase this argument purely in freedom of expression issues -- there is no way that Linden Labs could enforce this policy consistently, and therefore any enforcement would be selective. Selectively silencing expression is clearly discrimination, and even if that discrimination is not Linden Labs intent, it does put tools in the hands of those who would use them in such a manner.

ACLU had nothing to do with Blizzard's decision to back off their ill-conceived policy decision - there was simply a letter written to ACLU by the complainant. Lambda had written Blizzard on Sara Andrews' behalf, advising them of the potential unlawfulness of their position, but by the time they had received that letter, Blizzard was already backing off. At no time was the matter litigated by any party. Blizzard simply came to their senses.

In a growing number of states in the US, discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited by law. As far as I know, no such protection is afforded to fringe groups wishing to engage in virtual role playing of a sexually violent nature, or adult on child sexual activity. It's likely not something ACLU or Lambda would ever touch with a 30 foot gavel.

Freedom of Expression, which is not a legally protected "right" in a privately held online entertainment platform, is NOT what the WoW matter was about. It was about freedom from discrimination, and the real world legal jeopardy Blizzard Ent. could have ended in.

So, given that I've hopefully clarified that the WoW matter is in no way similar to our current matter here in Second Life, what *relevant* precedent exists to teach Linden Lab the lesson they need to learn about regulating content on their systems?

I may take some time to actually research that, but whether I can challenge it or not, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom has partnered with a legal aid branch, KAP (Kink Aware Professionals,) that is interested in those cases.

I think a very relevant organization here may be the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/), a nonprofit whose tagline is "Defending Freedom in the Digital World". They take on civil liberties cases involving the internet.

Interestingly, this organization was co-created by the current chairman of LL's Board. See this passionate interview on civil liberties and the internet from 1990: http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/barlow_and_kapor_in_wired_interview.html

* edit: sorry can't get this to display right, prolly due to length of url*

On the first point. When the Linden dollar started to trade as a RL currency this became more than a computer game. I am aware of the fact they claim it not to be one in their disclaimers, but this has never been legally tested. You can try all you like to tell me something isnt what it is, but if it is then it is, get round that, and I have a strong suspicion if the matter were legally challenged the Linden would classify legally as a currency in the majority of international jurisdictions. Therefore this is a currency based financial system, and property rights have progressed past intellectual property into fiduciary. As such it is financialy harmful to deny access to those of us who have a vested financial interest, based upon a ToS which was fair and reasonable when we signed up. This is not a computer game, it is a business, for LL and for many of us.

On the second point, if you want verification of the number of adult residents do a quick check of the traffic levels of various alternative lifestyle sims, then be quiet.

I did study law, and though it is not my speciality I have the strong suspicion that this new ToS would be in breach of the directives of the ECHU (European Court of Human Rights) also. It is something I will have to look into, and it is always questionable as there are no set precedents for the virtual environment as yet, but that can't be far away. When I have researched and have something more than suspicion to add on this I will post further with information for EU residents and Sim owners.

Given the general company that ncsf keep, I doubt they're taken all that seriously (yet?) in mainstream legal circles. Then again, neither was Larry Flynt.

And to clarify the statement, "no such *special* protection is afforded them" under the law. Of course the medium chosen to engage in the role play will be a key factor. I think it's pretty safe to assume that Linden Research can create, modify and enforce content guidelines however they see fit, as they own and operate the service as a private company. They have the added footing of positioning themselves in the global marketplace, which necessitates policy formulation with an eye toward laws of the many countries in which they operate. Global players, global rules.

Oh, please do bring on the discrimination, let's talk about the company WE keep, I'm certain it only strengthens your positions on dampening free expression and the lifestyles that adults are permitted to choose.

But that aside...

No, it's not safe to assume that they are capable of consistent enforcement, if it happens at all it's going to be pretty scattershot and almost solely reliant on spiteful motives for 'whistleblowing'.

What you also missed from above repeated points is that arbitrary and unnegotiated modification of their terms of service not only incurs real damages that are recoverable in civil action, but the abridgement of expression in content creation gives lie to the advertisement of their product. "Your World, Your Imagination", "We encourage creativity", "What you make belongs to you."

Now with a global market in mind, the Lindens had already created a clear demarcation between areas with PG-acceptable content, and areas where one would expect to be exposed to Mature communication, images, messages and communications, a line more often respected by the Mature than by the PG. Those assumed Mature enough to consent to that exposure need no authority to tell them what messages are appropriate for Mature members.

Now there may be kids who steal ID and cards and lie about their age, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and fraudulent thieving children deserve protection much less than than the Mature deserve protection from their intrusion.

"Freedom of Expression, which is not a legally protected "right" in a privately held online entertainment platform, is NOT what the WoW matter was about. It was about freedom from discrimination, and the real world legal jeopardy Blizzard Ent. could have ended in. "

The new policy outlined in LL's blog very much IS about "freedom from discrimination," as anyone who does not conform to this mysterious majority's definition of offensive is at risk of losing their account. I was for a time in Sara Andrews' guild (Oz, Shadowmoon server).

Keep that statement in context. I'm not deriding the company, just looking at it realistically. It's "out there" in terms of mainstream comfort level.
I didn't say it's safe to assume they are capable of consistent enforcement, I said it's safe to assume that they are entitled to create, modify and enforce content guidelines however they see fit.


A pretty much incontrovertible fact - when you connect to the service, you agree to the terms of the service. Part of that agreement is an acknowledgement by you, the end user, that you will read, and abide by the Community Standards document while using the service. This is the document, however lacking it currently may be, which governs the behavior being discussed here. There is no obligation on the part of Linden Research to negotiate modifications to this document with their customers.

That an account termination and resulting loss of property incurs real damages is not in question. Certainly it does. That said damages are recoverable in civil action is most certainly questionable. You might infer that content you create in Second Life is intrinsically and forever your own intellectual property, and that may well be true. You might infer that your L$ balance is always and forever yours, and that may well be true in principle. Linden Research is not obligated to ensure persistence of your property on their systems. You're free to recreate it elsewhere, if things don't work out for you in Second Life. They're not obligated to maintain its presence on their systems. Their liability for your losses are therefore substantially minimized.



I can't argue with this.

I will close this reply with another clarification.. I'm not one to encourage witch hunts, or insist that Linden Disneyfy the grid. I will always accept that there is a place for the "sin" industry in Second Life. Humans are sexual beings, like every other being. There's a complexity to human sexuality that will never be fully understood. I will, however, draw a line in the sand, and agree with Daniel, and Robin before him, that there is a place we just cannot go.

This line is drawn according to whose comfort level? And does it pertain to open expression, or expression behind closed doors, or expression behind layers and layers of disclaimers clearly stating, "THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE HEADING INTO. YOU HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO TURN BACK NOW IF IT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR."

Now I run a sim where membership comes with the acceptance that violent and/or coerced sexual situations may occur in the course of RP. No one becomes a member without that explicit acceptance. There may be protections from such assault, in RP, and there may be remedies for such assault, in RP, but all who participate understand that the risk is there. And some may arm themselves in preparation and you may be surprised to learn how many scramble toward the risk eagerly, or complain that they aren't being raped enough, but these are all adults who appreciate the fact that such danger and dark roleplay is present for their enjoyment in a security obsessed first life, and now a second life that believes people need to be protected from that expression...

Is age-play outside your comfort level? It surely is outside mine, but I tolerate it, because criminalizing the expression merely robs adults of their freedom without protecting a single child from real exploitation. Besides, juvenilizing teens is recent in history, and the sim I run is set in a historical period where 13 was considered young adult. While I don't permit avatars who appear or explicitly describe themselves as under 18, ephebephilia was prevalent in the culture and the erotic literature that forms a basis for the sim's setting.

Given that the trend of 'moral' opinion against it is less than a century old, merely a hiccup in history, with no certainty that it'll last much longer than a century in total, how can you be sure that it's 'right' and not a contemporary witch hunt?

Your assertion of discrimination in the context of this "new policy" is not the same as the discrimination which occurred in the Andrews matter. In that case, there was discrimination against a protected status. At least potentially. In this case, over here in Second Life, the "discrimination" is against an assumed right of expression. This right does not exist, therefore there is no achievable punitive outcome to be had.

I have an example of this which is almost, if not enitrely equivelant to yours. I'll share it with you in world tomorrow, as it wouldn't be appropriate to share it here. I'd like to keep the substance of the discussion here, however. Going off to other things for the evening. Cheers.

And now this discussion descends into an argument on comparative morality and the validity of our beliefs one way or another.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing as S.G. Tallentyre

The point, as I see it is quite simply this. Nobody is forced to enter, remain in, play in or even acknowledge the existance of those parts of Second Life they personally find distasteful or offensive. There are warnings, disclaimers, region flags. I personally detest SL dance clubs, I find them silly, pointless, laggy and populated in the majority by idiots. That is my personal opinion. As such I have found a wonderful and effective way of dealing with these abominations. I don't go to them.

HOWEVER, if the 'moral majority' came to be represented by an even more conservative society than it is today and these clubs were considered abhorent as certain consentual activities now are being, then despite my distaste I would vociferously defend their right to waste their time in whichever pointless mindless activity they thought fit.

I am waiting for the reply that ridicules the comparison of alternative lifestyles to dance clubs, and to pre empt those I will say that anything and everything may be considered wrong by some people some of the time, be it political moral or religious conservatism. Indeed many religions throughout the world frown upon activities which the majority find perfectly acceptable.

In either a democratic society or one in which we truly hold that people are free then they must be free to say and do that which we do not. Legal constraints and criminal activity are seperate in their entirety from completely consentual acitivities between two or more adults.

Finally. These things are going to happen, despite the best efforts of the Lindens, or anybody else, unless they adopt a policy of monitoring every conversation every resident has on the grid. Currently these activities are harmless, open and between consenting adults. not only is there an outlet for them to express themselves but there is an educative system where they can do so safely.

Alternative lifestyle is no more a choice than sexuality, it is a core of who and what we are. There must be ways and means for us to safely explore ourselves, come to understand ourselves, realise that though we may be in a minority we are neither unique or alone.

So lets not bicker as to whether gays have the right to be gay, alternative lifestylers have the right to their particular 'foibles' and whether we personally find it distasteful or appealing. This issue is greater than that. In our great, free, international society we are being robbed of our right to be who we are, to say what we believe and to act as we would, as between informed and consenting adults. It may be our party they are pissing on today, and you never know, tommorow it may be yours, the 'majority' is a fickle and ever changing dynamic.

Instead I ask you to either stand up for the right of the individual in the face of the majority, or to bury your head back in your shell and pretend we are all a nasty dream, nursey will bring in your milky cocoa soon, the boogeyman isnt out to get you. Do not think to derogate what you do not understand, or isolate it because your ignorance leads you to fear.

I am so glad to see these one sided TOS challanged. Whether you support this particular case or not, the consequences of it would benefit all content creators and anyone who has made a financial investment into SL.

then LL should change thier site page from, "Your World Your Imagination" to "Your World Your Imagination but at Our Discretion"

"Your World Your Imagination but at Our Discretion", "And well blame the Community when we decide on the Elimination of your Creation."

See, SL is not a game and never was.

The fact of a viable VR platform has already become too important a factor in too many people's lives to treat it like a bunch of kids saying "Let's build a clubhouse and have any kind of rules we think of, and change them whenever we feel like it."

Looks like the residents need to inform them.

My name is Stephen, in the real world, I'm Sidoen in the VR environment we all know as Second Life. In SL I'm a merchant that provides to the community that's feeling a great deal of threat from the policies in question. In the real world that threat is just as present.

When I have to deal with someone new to the idea of BDSM or Gor I start slowly and gently and introduce first the concepts behind the philosophies. Some listen and understand, they may or may not agree with the philosophies but they understand them and no longer fear them. Some don't listen, they remain affraid and hence a threat.

We all want SL to listen and we all know that SL is notorious for not doing so. I'm impressed with the efforts that have been iniated though and I just wanted the opportunity to throw my voice and support in here. This is the second life, and we need to be accepted in here as much as in the real world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6724531.stm

Broccoli