Do we have freedom of speech in SL?
|
Lhorentso Nurmi
Registered User
Join date: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 246
|
12-07-2006 04:48
From: bilbo99 Emu Someone earlier mentioned capitalism. One of the sometimes sad facets of capitalism and a paraphrase of Orwell since someone mentioned him; All capitalsts are equal. Some are more equal than others. Another phrase comes to mind - Sticks and stones may break my bones but words cannot hurt me. Consider both together and it's easy to see that if you defame someone bigger and more powerful than you, the retaliation will knock you down. This is how so many of the wrong people have made it to power in the world - not the nicest but the most powerful. I digress. If your only problem is pink walls, put your own up in front. It's really all you can do without starting a war  Capitalism is not perfect, no. Some countries are better at it than others. But I'd rather live in the UK or US than a country like Iran or China.
|
bilbo99 Emu
Garrett's No.1 fan
Join date: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,468
|
12-07-2006 05:09
From: Lhorentso Nurmi Capitalism is not perfect, no. Some countries are better at it than others.
But I'd rather live in the UK or US than a country like Iran or China. Agreed utterly! I was merely pointing out one of the sadder aspects. No, capitalism has a lot of plus points. Technology advancements. Market forces driving prices down ... still, what's good for the seller isn't neccessarily good for the buyer. .. just wish I had enough capital to be a capitalist  edit: sorry for digressing from OP .. but I was exercising my freedom of speech 
|
Annisetta Anadyr
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 20
|
12-07-2006 10:16
From: Lhorentso Nurmi If I say something diffamatory about you I risk being take to court. LL may be liable too as publishers of the information.
So I have to watch what I say. Does this mean I'm not free? Course it does. You can't have degrees of freedom. That sort of thing was invented by lawyers and politicians. There was a time when we were free to say what we wanted. Sometimes doing so would earn us a bash on the nose but we accepted that as the price of freedom and learned what upset others and so avoided doing it. Now we're 'protected' by reams of legislation meaning that we're not allowed to say anything that might possibly ever be construed by anything from an ant to a god as being upsetting to any other being in the universe. Are we better off for it? I don't believe so. You might think otherwise of course. I wouldn't go around saying or doing things that are deliberately aimed at upsetting other people but these days we have to think so carefully about every word uttered that sometimes I just don't bother to say anything - far easier and safer to stick with people I know and understand...espeecially when there are so many people around desperate to be offended by something.
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
12-07-2006 10:27
From: Thunderclap Morgridge Gillian and the others: You are confusing rights, privileges, and consequences. Being a US citizen I have the right to shout anything I want anywhere I want. However, my choice of wordage will invoke consequences depending on my location.
I don't think it's that clear-cut... If you follow that rule then someone who lives in a dictatorship, where the government will have you shot if you criticise the dictator, still has freedom of speech because they can still say those words, it just has negative consequences (ie, being shot).
|
Maximillian Desoto
Max's Landfall Bar & Dock
Join date: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 323
|
12-07-2006 11:23
From: Annisetta Anadyr Course it does. You can't have degrees of freedom. That sort of thing was invented by lawyers and politicians.
There was a time when we were free to say what we wanted. Sometimes doing so would earn us a bash on the nose but we accepted that as the price of freedom and learned what upset others and so avoided doing it.
Now we're 'protected' by reams of legislation meaning that we're not allowed to say anything that might possibly ever be construed by anything from an ant to a god as being upsetting to any other being in the universe. Are we better off for it? I don't believe so. You might think otherwise of course. No, there is only freedom. You ARE free to say anything you wish to say. However, based on the customs and laws agreed to by a FREE society, you may be liable if your speech causes harmful actions, ie. shouting FIRE in a crowded movie theatre. Many things are said that upset many other beings in the universe. Listen to talk radio for an hour! <g> Upsetting does not mean harmful, and those 'reams of legislation' you speak of do not apply. Just remember that YOUR freedom to swing your fist ENDS at my nose. And to keep it on-topic, yes, you have limitaions on speech as outlined in the TOS. Sorry if you feel it abridges your free speech, but participation in SL is not a constitutional right; if you don't like the rules, don't play the game. Max
|
Stormy Roentgen
Prim Putter Togetherer
Join date: 25 May 2004
Posts: 342
|
12-07-2006 13:05
Don't confuse the ability to say everything you'd like with the freedom to say anything you like. There's a huge difference. "Freedom of Speech" (for us lucky enough to really have it) is a right guaranteed to us and protected by the government. If our government were to shoot us in the head for uttering words they disliked, that would not be freedom to utter the words. It would only be capability to speak them, followed by punishment.
_____________________
You can find my products at these locations:
|
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
|
12-07-2006 13:37
From: Stormy Roentgen If our government were to shoot us in the head for uttering words they disliked, that would not be freedom to utter the words. Like a 14 year old getting hauled out of class by the secret service because she decides to write some bad things about the president on her blog just little over a month ago?
|
Doubledown Tandino
ADULT on the Mainland!
Join date: 9 Mar 2006
Posts: 1,020
|
12-07-2006 15:13
From: Kitty Barnett Like a 14 year old getting hauled out of class by the secret service because she decides to write some bad things about the president on her blog just little over a month ago? I read about that. Sad to say our tax dollars are used to scour myspace to find deflaming messages about the president. .... but with this instance, she had freedom of speech. And the secret service came to question her about it. It's like yelling 'bomb' in an airport. Or yelling 'fire' when there isn't any. This is not censorship... this is preventing a large disaster or panic.
_____________________
http://djdoubledown.blogspot.com
|
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
|
12-07-2006 15:25
From: Doubledown Tandino It's like yelling 'bomb' in an airport. Or yelling 'fire' when there isn't any. This is not censorship... this is preventing a large disaster or panic. I wasn't claiming censorship on it  . But the post I quoted claimed that freedom of speech means that you're free to say whatever you wish, without punishment from the goverment, which is clearly not true. [Edited to add that libel is also a form of speech that isn't free from persecution]
|
Angelique LaFollette
Registered User
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,595
|
12-07-2006 21:56
There is One thing i AM curious about, Just what is it exactly that you WANT to say, that you Feel you are being Prevented from Saying? I've been in SL for two Years, and have Freely expressed All of my Opinions Up to and Including the believe that Certain personages have thier heads firmly lodged up thier Colons, but at No time has anyone attempted to Limit what i have said. If you don't think i Can be controversial, Just Look me up in Game, and see what i get up to in there. No, as i see it we DO have Fairly Free speech in Second Life. What we Don't have is the right to Harass, or Slander, or Threaten, or deliberately spread Lies,but as for pretty much everything else, I've seen that we Are fairly Free. So,, Just what Is it that "They" are preventing you from expressing?
I Live in Canada, We have rights like Freedom of speech, but Our constitution recognizes that No right can be considered Absolute. Each of our rights has a reasonable Boundry. That Boundry usually defined by the Point at which exercise of MY rights means Trampling on the rights of Others. There is also a "Notwithstanding Clause" that allows what appears to be Violations of some Basic Freedoms IF it can be proven that it is Necesary to do so to serve a Common Good, The "French Only" Sign Laws in Quebec, aimed at preserving the distinct culture of the Quebequois for example [personally i disagree with this use of the clause, and eventually it will probably be overturned, but then i can also see the point made by the waning French Speaking Minority in Quebec who want to preserve thier distinct Culture].
As i see it, i DO have Freedom of Speech in SL, Unquestionably. If i can go for two years speaking on the topics i do, and Not suffer any censorship At All, I'd say that is more than sufficient proof. So, What is it you are NOT being allowed to say?
Angel.
|
Stormy Roentgen
Prim Putter Togetherer
Join date: 25 May 2004
Posts: 342
|
12-07-2006 22:04
I am not allowed to put a sign on my parcel by his pink wall with a notecard in it explaining why it's there (because I am being harrassed by <insert name>  so that his tenants can see it in passing by. It was reported and moved. It contained facts, actual events, things that have been reported and sent with screenshots, but when it came down to it, he is allowed to bomb my parcel with temp on rez prims and anything else he wants to do, but for me to tell anyone <insert name> is doing <insert numerous things> to me is against the linden law. As I speak, there is a slow rezzer running that's tossing temp on rez bomb looking things onto my parcel.
_____________________
You can find my products at these locations:
|
bilbo99 Emu
Garrett's No.1 fan
Join date: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,468
|
12-08-2006 02:38
Stormy, I thought this situation had defused somewhat by removal of most of the offending articles. Have you contacted any other neighbours who may be getting the same treatment? If LL got multiple complaints against a single owner they may sit up and take notice.
Freedom of Speech thinking back to when it was first explained to me, was being able to say anything without being dragged off to a prison cell or a wall to be shot. Instead, you get the opportunity to justify your statement in court. That's RL for most of us I believe.
In SL, LL lays the law and enforces it. You may still have the problem but here, there is no arbitrator.
Sorry if I seem to be just repeating what's already been said.
|
Little Gray
Registered User
Join date: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 48
|
ToS & the First Amendment
12-08-2006 03:11
Up until tonight, I believed Avatars, at least those who's real life personalities are citizens of the United States or otherwise entitled to the protections of the laws of the United States (whether, and to what extent the U.S. Constitution applies to non-US citizens is a different topic) were protected by the First Amendment. For constitutional purposes, Second Life can be seen as a quasi-governmental fora providing a public place for citizens to meet and discuss issues similar to how the First Amendment protects the right to protest and speak at Shopping Malls and Universities. However, as raised in the following posts to Linden Answers, Linden Labs apparently exercises totalitarian control over what conduct may be subject to suspension or termination of an account: /139/3b/153580/1.html#post1354256/139/d7/153583/1.html#post1354265/139/98/153585/1.html#post1354269Without due process, and where we as residents have no real ability to enforce or protect our civil rights, we don't actually have the freedoms of expression that some of us enjoy as citizens of the United States and other governments that respect, and protect, the rights of its citizens. Linden Labs has stated an intent to leave the day to day regulation of community affairs up to the residents, so unless the residents are given some ability to protect and enforce civil rights, such as might be possible by expanding the maximum size of groups to include the entire population of SL, thereby giving the functional equivalent of suspension and termination to the community, we may just have to have live with doubt, uncertainty and fear. Little Gray SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union
|
bilbo99 Emu
Garrett's No.1 fan
Join date: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,468
|
12-08-2006 03:27
From: Little Gray Linden Labs has stated an intent to leave the day to day regulation of community affairs up to the residents, so unless the residents are given some ability to protect and enforce civil rights, such as might be possible by expanding the maximum size of groups to include the entire population of SL, thereby giving the functional equivalent of suspension and termination to the community, we may just have to have live with doubt, uncertainty and fear.
Little Gray SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union
Equal Rights for Avatars! .... Equal Rights for Avatars! .... Equal Rights for Avatars! .... ERA! Hey, that's cool! .. and I'm not being cynical!
|
John Horner
Registered User
Join date: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 626
|
12-08-2006 03:51
Interesting.
This thread brings together two post issues, this thread here and another over on Linden Questions/Answers essentially asking the same thing albeit in a slightly different way.
In my opinion Second Life is a PLACE and I think that viewpoint is shared by many of the larger real life corporate business that is entering this world. There are all sorts of other issues that spin off from that but to stick to the main subject thrust of this thread….
Second Life is a Place/Country where we have the equal of an absolute Sovereign as in King Philip I. He rules by this places equal of divine right. By and large he is a benign absolute Monarch as He wishes His Country to grow.
Don’t ask or wish for democracy, you don’t want it, trust me on that one. In fact I only wish His Royal Majesty would hurry up and declare emanate domain. That would neatly square the circle and codify interesting anomalies regarding currency, taxation, and due legal process in this place.
Finally Angelique LaFollette and I share the same principle in our other country, as in Queen Elizabeth II, although in this case our respective countries are hundreds of years old and as such have a type of evolved democracy where our joint Sovereign accepts the advice of enfranchised subjects.
Yes, that’s right, we are subjects here. The TOS are a type of Magna Carter
Regards
John
|
bilbo99 Emu
Garrett's No.1 fan
Join date: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,468
|
12-08-2006 04:06
From: John Horner Yes, that’s right, we are subjects here. The TOS are a type of Magna Carter
Regards
John
Magna Carta  Pedantic I know .. but we have a copy of it just a mile away IRL
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
12-08-2006 06:23
From: Little Gray Up until tonight, I believed Avatars, at least those who's real life personalities are citizens of the United States or otherwise entitled to the protections of the laws of the United States (whether, and to what extent the U.S. Constitution applies to non-US citizens is a different topic) were protected by the First Amendment. For constitutional purposes, Second Life can be seen as a quasi-governmental fora providing a public place for citizens to meet and discuss issues similar to how the First Amendment protects the right to protest and speak at Shopping Malls and Universities.
Little Gray SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union Umm you have no right to speak or protest at a shopping mall, they are private property. Even Universities usually require that you be attached to the Universitiy in some matter, even if just an alumnus. As far as SL, no it is a purely privately owned place, you have no rights. Nor should you have any rights.
|
Learjeff Innis
musician & coder
Join date: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 817
|
12-08-2006 06:53
Have you reported your neighbor's griefing?
Seems to me that he's just trying to devalue your property so you sell (and who would buy property with a huge ugly wall along it?) Get a Linden to hang out on your property and witness the griefing.
You need to pursue your complaint with LL strongly. Also, you have to defend your right to stating the truth publicly, using a sign (but stick to facts!)
That's my opinion.
Cheers and good luck. Jeff
|
Stormy Roentgen
Prim Putter Togetherer
Join date: 25 May 2004
Posts: 342
|
12-08-2006 10:56
I did report it, many times, starting weeks ago. You know, when you report something, you get an email. In that email it says you will receive another email telling you the issue has been closed once it has been investigated. I never received such notice.
I tried talking to the Linden who removed my signs. (There were 3 of them... 2 on the wall at different elevations, and one on the other side of my parcel right beside his 16sqm block containing his billboard.) She would hardly respond to me, and when she did it was just the same programmed BS response over and over. "If you're being harrassed, abuse report it. It's not an instance fix though. Sometimes it takes a few days." My first abuse report went in much, much longer than a few days ago, while his abuse report about my signs was responded to within 4 hours. I tried reasoning with her about why my signs were not slanderous, but that fell on deaf ears too.
For the sake of accuracy, here is a copy of what my notecard contained:
********* ******** recently purchased land in Royal and asked most residents here to sell their land to him. When turned down, he surrounded the parcels of others with 20m high walls which were 85% transparent, misaligned, and overlapping the borders and builds of the residents of Royal.
Requests for removal of walls fell on deaf ears, only resulting in retexturing of the walls to hot pink on the sides facing others' land parcels.
The walls are on land owned by *********, thus the blatant harrassment/griefing doesn't break any rules contained in SL's terms of service and user agreement.
However, *********'s conduct and treatment of the residents of this once beutiful and peaceful sim do break the rules of common decency and respect for others.
I urge you not to support such behavior.
There is no way for me to "defend my right" to keep that up. I can either forget about it, or I can keep replacing the signs, and I am not going to be banned from SL over this loser. Besides, it's infuriating in the moments when a Linden is coming over to remove my belongings and completely ignoring the rest of what's going on. I rather not give them reason to make me feel that way repeatedly. So now, I just mask his mess and I abuse report it everyday.
Trying to devalue my property... you hit the nail on the head. Infact, if it were just a residence for me, I'd be angry but not nearly as concerned as I am now considering how this looks to my customers. If you arrived at a sculpter's parcel and the first thing you saw was a 20m wall of hotpink light, would you even care to enter? My land is my first impression on people who do not know my work.
Regarding others who are receiving the same treatment, he removed the walls surrounding their parcels while leaving mine. When I asked him why did I not receive the same courtesy as the others, he told me he left mine because I banned him from my land.
_____________________
You can find my products at these locations:
|
Learjeff Innis
musician & coder
Join date: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 817
|
12-08-2006 11:38
I can see why you're frosted. Frankly, I'd be quivering with rage.
There's really nothing you can do about the walls, as long as they're not on your property. (Not sure what you mean by "misaligned, overlapping borders and builds" -- if his wall is on your property, you should be able to eject it, right?) The best you can do on that score is to erect your own wall to a reasonable height, and put a nice mural on it.
The only other thing you could do is put up a sign saying "This wall (arrow) belongs to *********** ************." How could that be considered griefing? If you omit any opinion and just label each offending wall (and have the neighbors do so as well), it might have an effect, and any objection to it on Lindens' part would clearly be a case of graft, not just a matter of judgement. Admittedly, the effect would probably be minimal.
The next question is whether you're sure your neighbor is creating the grief objects. There were a LOT of those going around everywhere recently. Even if the guy is a complete jerk, you have to assume he's not responsible unless you can catch one and see that it's owned by him. (And even then, it's possible that he innocently picked up and activated a griefer.) However, if you do have good reason to believe that, file a complaint each time you see these objects, and each time include the claim numbers from every other claim you've filed. I assume they get numbers of some kind -- if not, include the dates of each previous complaint.
Keep it up, and be consistent. Be the squeaky wheel here, but always completely within your rights. Also, engage the cooperation of your neighbors. As an individual, you're more easily dismissed as a sourpuss. The bigger the group, the more voice you have. But don't expect to get the ugly walls removed (as long as they're within property limits). There are no zoning laws!
If you got this as FL, maybe you should simply sell, at a premium price, and find a better neighborhood. Again, getting together with your neighbors is best; use collective bargaining. The justification for a premium price is that the location of the land makes it far more valuable to ******* than to anyone else. (I've been involved in land deals where that argument was used, and it was true!)
|
Learjeff Innis
musician & coder
Join date: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 817
|
12-08-2006 11:42
From: someone Regarding others who are receiving the same treatment, he removed the walls surrounding their parcels while leaving mine. When I asked him why did I not receive the same courtesy as the others, he told me he left mine because I banned him from my land. There's a lesson there, btw. It doesn't make the guy any less of a jerk -- quite the opposite. Still, there's a lesson, one I need to relearn myself from time to time. Maybe you should ask the guy if the two of you can't just find some way to bury the hatchet. Offer some sculpture?
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
12-08-2006 11:43
From: Annisetta Anadyr Freedom of speech is simple, you either have it or you don't. If you have to watch what you say, you're not free. And in SL, some of us have it, and some of us don't. coco
|
Stormy Roentgen
Prim Putter Togetherer
Join date: 25 May 2004
Posts: 342
|
12-08-2006 11:48
From: Learjeff Innis There's a lesson there, btw. It doesn't make the guy any less of a jerk -- quite the opposite. Still, there's a lesson, one I need to relearn myself from time to time.
Maybe you should ask the guy if the two of you can't just find some way to bury the hatchet. Offer some sculpture? He has a couple of bussinesses on his land, one of which is a club with a vip type area hoursing gay furry porn. Somehow I don't think he's the type who would be insterested in my kind of builds. 
_____________________
You can find my products at these locations:
|
Argus Collingwood
Totally Tintable
Join date: 5 Dec 2005
Posts: 600
|
Exactly
12-08-2006 12:05
From: Yngwie Krogstad Freedom of speech is nothing more, or less, than a means of determining what power, if any, the Government of your country has in deciding what you may or may not say. Various countries have differing levels of such, but I'm going to use the United States Constitution as an example.
Any and all provisions in the constitution and/or amendments, are all aimed at limiting the United States Government's ability to tell you what you may or may not say. Same thing goes for state constitutions.
Since Second Life is not a public place, but rather a business being run by a private entity, such Governmental restrictions do not apply to Linden Labs.
So, do we have freedom of speech? Absolutely. Do we have the reasonable expectation of being free to say whatever we want without any fear of censure from Linden Labs? No. While we are free from Governmental interference, we are still using servers that belong to Linden Labs, and they can make any decisions they want as to how we are allowed to use their servers. Thank you for understanding the US Constitution's postition on Free Speech. I'm always at a loss when folks assume that Free Speech equates to being able to say anything you want anywhere you want. Every Internet Forum admin runs into this boggle at some time and I'm always amazed that folks don't understand the term Free Speech only applies to the Government prohibiting your ability to critique it. Added edit: If, as a Customer, you have a legit gripe you should contact LL through the various avenues they have for that not come to the Forum and give your litany of woes. Any business [i.e. LL] is more concerned with the emails they get sent to the right department as opposed to spilling your virtual guts on a Forum that has clear posting Guidelines.
|
Elex Dusk
Bunneh
Join date: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 800
|
12-08-2006 14:28
From: Yngwie Krogstad So, do we have freedom of speech? Absolutely. Do we have the reasonable expectation of being free to say whatever we want without any fear of censure from Linden Labs? No. While we are free from Governmental interference, we are still using servers that belong to Linden Labs, and they can make any decisions they want as to how we are allowed to use their servers. Excellent point. Within SL property owners (and renters to a limited degree on the part of their landlord) have a right to eject and/or ban anyone they wish from their parcel(s). For example, if a person were to solicit without permission on someone else's land they could be ejected and/or banned simply for not getting permission from the parcelholder. The unpermitted solicitor does not have a "free speech" right to solicit on a property owner's land. The landowner has no obligation to inform the unpermitted seller that they are about to be ejected and/or banned nor are they under any obligation to debate the reason(s) for ejection. The unpermitted solicitor (or any ejectee for that matter) does not have a free speech right to return to the banned parcel and linger near it. The umpermitted solicitor's specious claim to a free speech right does not trump the right of the landholder to eject and ban anyone they wish to for any reason, especially soliciting without permission. Speaking as a gathering place owner I'm constantly amazed at the relation between unpermitted sellers/solicitors attempting to sell, recruit, promote "take a survey for L$" schemes, etc., on my parcels and their claims of "free speech" and of "rudeness" and "incivility" on my part when they get caught. I've even had unpermitted solicitors _insist_ that I apologize to them for ejecting and banning them from my land. No one has a free speech right to engage in unpermitted commercial speech on someone else's parcel. The most _civil_ thing to do would be to ask permission first.
|