Do we have freedom of speech in SL?

Nevermind, I'm not going to debate you. If you feel my post isn't within the guidelines, have it shut down. I got what I needed.

And that is the key. You can get out on public property and protest. There is no such thing as public property in Second Life. Not the protected land where plans are to eventually build a road or a railroad, not the welcome centers, not Help Island, nowhere. Everything is stored on privately owned servers, which are subject to the rules set forth by the owners of said servers. It's all private property, and just as you have the power to decide what may or may not be said inside of your own RL residence, so too do the owners of the private property which is Second Life, have the same power to make the same decisions regarding Second Life.

I was responding to the post I quoted, not your post. As a landowner in SL you may ban and eject any griefer or someone who doesn't even look right [i.e. Huge Nekkie Newbs with Parts exposed] without fear of being deprived of your Free Speech in-world. I wouldn't start broadcasting So-And-So rips you off in Huge Letters, but an im to all your groups or friends is not IMO a violation of the ToS. Sorry if you think I was opposed to your posts.

The difference between SL and RL is kinda like the difference between renting and owning in RL. If I rent an appartment, eventhough it is "my home" while I'm paying rent each month, I still don't have the freedom to pee on the carpet everyday like I would if I bought my own house....

I'm Not at all commenting on the Justness of your Claim against your neighbor. On a Purely Personal Note, i agree thier actions ARE reprehensible and LL Should do something about it, but that is NOT Germaine to this discussion and that is as far as i will comment upon that subject.
With regards to your Freedom of Speech Issue;
You DID and DO have the right to Report this Incident to the Lindens, and Yes, I'm aware that you Did. You have put it in thier hands. Assuming what you said about receiving no notification that the investigation has been concluded, One can assume that it has NOT YET been concluded. So Far, for evey AR i have Filed, i have a Neat Matching set of these E-Mails but sometimes the second one HAS been days or weeks in Coming. The sign you put up is either an attempt by you to End Run LL, and Gain redress or revenge Without thier assistance, AND/OR an attempt to make Public a situation that, once put in LL's hands for Investigation, Should remain between You, your neighbor, and Linden Labs. The TOS Does state that the AR Investigation process IS Confidential, and though you Will be told it is concluded, Confidentiality demands that you will NOT be told What the Outcome Is. I assume you would be wholly and completely Satisfied with this mechanism IF your neighbor were suddenly Forced to Remove all trace of the Offending Wall.
In Either event your sign Itself Is a Violation of TOS, AND Harassment against your Neighbor. You made your AR, and whether you agree with the Outcome or Not, THAT was your exercise of Freedom of Speech.
As i stated CLEARLY above, We have Freedom of speech, what we Don't have is the freedom so Slander, Harass, Abuse or Lie. Whether you Ageree or Not, your sign DOES Constitute Harassment.
Let Due Process take it's Course and don't continue to do Irresponsible things that will call into question the Validity of your existing case.

Angel.

An argument for the application for United States Federal Constitutional Rights to the conduct of Avatars and Linden Labs can be made by the logical extension of existing laws of the United States and the California Constitution.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that, subject to reasonable time place and manner restrictions, the right to speak under the California Constittion prevails over the rights of privately owned shopping malls. (See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980).) Court decisions subsequent to Pruneyard have clarified that a shopping mall owner must provide reasonable access to engage in first amendment activities; it can prevent protestors from blocking entrances, but, it must allow them access inside and can't force them out into a back entrance where they have no way to communicate to shopping mall patrons. Linden Labs is a California Corporation. (See http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowList.) It also maintains servers in the State of California and invites residents to conduct business with a California Corporation.

When the Constittion was drafted, the founders believed that there should be a 'commons' where individuals could protest, speak out against the government or private individuals or groups. The 'commons' was originally set aside by a city or local government. As land became more privatized, Courts interpreted the constitutional protections as envisioned by the framers of the constitution to extend to land held open to the public or providing a quasi governmental function of being a place where people could meet and express ideas. A case can be made that the Federal Constitition extends to Linden Labs because it is engaged in interstate commerce and provides a quasi governmental forum where people can meet and express ideas.

Extending the existing laws of the State of California and U.S. Constitution, Linden Labs may impose reasonable time place and manner restrictions, but, cannot arbitrariliy or unreasonably deny rights of residents to associate or to possess of property which they have created and own under the terms of service. LL expects and enourages residents to use SL as a place to discuss ideas, to create and conduct business, and to make friends or associations which can only be conducted within SL. Yes, the terms of service basically say LL has complete discretion over the termination of accounts, but, they cannot force people to waive constitutionally protected rights, or, as a matter of contract interpretation, make the provisions for the ownership of property subject to so much discretion that of LL's representations that residents own property (as stated in the ToS) are empty/meaningless contract clauses. An argument can certainly be made that LL could not arbitrarily or unreasonable terminate or suspend an account for engaging in conduct that would be protected by the California or U.S. Constitution.

Note also that general tort priciples embodieed by claims for intentional and negligent interference with a business, negligence, and emotional distress (loss of friends and property) also probably provide some additional checks and balances with respect to what action may be taken for conduct committed in SL. Ask yourself, "If I have the right to do something in the real world, and LL provides an environment where I can engage in similar conduct in a virtual environment, isn't it reasonable for me to assume that the rights I would have in the real world would apply in SL, absent a clear indication that they do not?"

So, unless LL comes out and directly states 'No you do not have freedom of speech in SL' and that residents waive all constutional rights (and if that's something that is legally possible), I think you should -- for the benefit of us all -- assume that you do have the right to free speech.

Little Gray
SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union.

P.S. If anyone is still following this thread, the SL ACLU will be hosting an open meeting tonight (12/12/06) at 6:00 pm at the SL ACLU Headquarters (search events or places) to discuss protesting business or organizations in SL. The discussion will relate specifically to whether, and what extent, it is permissible to organize a non-trespassry, civil, protest against a business in SL. I had previously posted this question in Resident Answers (Will I get Terminated if I Do This?" but included the name of the business from which it would be possible to determine -- albeit within SL -- the identity of the owner, and, because the post was outside of SL, the post was locked. I received two response, one that protests are not allowed, the other that protests are allowed. I think the issue deserves opinion from the wider community and hope to elict meaningful thoughts to develop some guidelines as to how to publically criticize a business, for the purpose of acheiving justice and social change, without engendering complaints for griefing.

... except that Second Life is NOT the United States of America, and the constitution does not apply in Second Life, whether you are a US citizen or not. Bearing in mind that non-US players make up an increasingly large proportion of its playerbase, this becomes less and less of an issue each day.

Essentially, the only right that any of us have in Second Life is to cancel our account if we do not feel that we can abide by the rules that Linden Lab require us to follow. If they decided that we all have to tattoo on our butts "Philip is God", then we either start looking for a nearby tattooist, or hit the "Cancel" button.

As a private entity, Linden Lab have the right to allow or deny whatever they choose to, on their private servers. It is us who comply, not them who adjust to what we want. We don't even have an automatic right to access those private servers and log in (or speak here) if they choose not to.

Whether censoring the 'freedom of speech' that people demand in reality is actually beneficial to the company or not, remains to be seen.

Broccoli

I've presented a legal argument for why there is, or should be, freedom of speech in Second Life. In a nutshell, I am applying Pruneyard (and its progeny) and saying that legally, SL is like a shopping mall or a university. I understand many people may disagree, perhaps even the esteemed Judge Posner who was here in SL recently. What I am interested in is hearing a legal argument, or AT LEAST SOME REASONING, why people do not believe you have, or should have, freedom of speech in Second Life. Are there cases or laws that state, suggest, or imply, that, with respect to freedom of speech, virtual worlds are somehow exempt from constitutional requirements? Do you believe the ToS constitutes a waiver of constitutionally protected rights and tort remedies under California law, what specific clauses cause you to believe so, and why? Do you have authorities or cases that the laws of the State of California (jursidiction) do not apply (i.e. that the laws of the United States and of California ONLY apply to their respective citizens except to the extent sovereign comity/subject matter jurisdiction confer rights protected by U.S. and California laws upon foriegners)?

My understanding of SL is that while in form of "virtual world" we're dealing with a service provided by a privately owned company, under the conditions specified in the TOS etc.

To me having access to SL is not different than having access to the Internet, which is given by my ISP under the conditions specified in the TOS etc.

When it comes to what I do on SL, chatting with friends or manipulating objects or whatever is not much different than posting on a forum. Doing that, I'm using a service and I do not expect the "virtual me" to benefit from any US or other country constitutional right.

Just my 2 cents.

It's easy.

Linden Lab is a private company. As such, it sets whatever rules, however reasonable or unreasonable some may view them, and acts upon them as (or as not) it sees fit, whenever it feels like it, as to regards the access and use of its services - which, in this case, is a private computer network.

We have no rights here except those Linden Lab choose to give us, and the only thing we can do is cancel our accounts if we don't like it.

You don't need 'legalese' - plain english is perfectly adequate to get to that conclusion, and whether or not you, I or anyone else like it - there isn't a thing we can do, legally or otherwise.

Broccoli

Aww, there she is .. the loveliest legs in Linden Land xxx

Well, I'm in UK so how does California Law (if it chose to) affect me?
For me, Linden is God, not California.

kill all the eskimo people!

and the white people!

oh, and the black people!

kill the people!

Thanks hon, but there's plenty of good looking gals in SL, though it's fine with me to be placed in the "best looking" group

Anyway, I had a a go at SL TOS (https://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php), which starts with:

Welcome to Second Life! The following agreement (this "Agreement" or the "Terms of Service" describes the terms on which Linden Research, Inc. ("Linden Lab" offers you access to its services. This offer is conditioned on your agreement to all of the terms and conditions contained in the Terms of Service, including your compliance with the policies and terms linked to (by way of the provided URLs) from this Agreement.

This tells almost anything we need to know, huh? SL is a service, to use it we accept to be bound by an agreement (or if you like more, to stay within the TOS). If we do that, we can't at a later stage ask for "freedom" or "constitutional rights". There's a difference between using a service and... living a (second) life.

Having to stay within the TOS is a common and well know condition to use a service. NoTOS respect, no service.

As for which law may apply, well. I believe that LL is subject to California/US laws. About residents, I believe we may be subject to both US/California and our national country laws.

I mean, if I steal a car in Frisco and I'm caught in California/US I then can't say "Hey, I'm a (name a non US state/country) resident, you can't do anything to me". Still, as far as I know, residents of my country are subject to our national laws, at least for some criminal acts. I can remember the case of some people involved in child abuses who used to travel abroad, to "escape" our national laws. Abuses were committed in foreign countries.

Just another 2 cents

Sorry, should have clarified. If I stole a car in Frisco I would expect to be dealt with by California Law. What I meant was if I steal a Californian car in UK.

.. and yep, I know there's lots of gorgeous gals in SL .. and that's why you'll never get rid of me!

I believe the car is the "object" and as of now it doesn't matter. The place does matter, but in your example you (the offender) are a resident of the place where the offense takes place.

The subject I believe it was a named place (California/US) against a foreign offender.