Avatar conduct and land owner rights
|
|
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
|
12-12-2006 07:42
From: Shep Korvin Second life is neither real land, nor a real place. It's an abstract representation of computer data, all of which is privately owned. We have every right, as owners of that data, to decide precisely who may access and use it.
Your rules do not apply here. If you read the TOS carefully that is not true. Yes you own it, but that does not grant you any rights to it. It does not grant you the right to access it or delete it (Section 3.3), those rights are rights reserved exclusively for LL. LL owns the data, you own the IP. To put it another way, you may be the artist of a painting but when you upload it, you retain the copyright, but they own the copy you gave them (and you grant them permission to duplicate that copy). But that is another discussion altogether. Little Gray has struck upon an interesting point though he doesn't realize it; as a land owner you are still bound by the terms of the Community Standards. The intent of the CS is to do things fairly and with justice. If as a land owner you make an ass of yourself with uneven rule enforcement, you may find yourself on the wrong side of the CS. LL will not hesitate to suspend people or ban them for CS violations regardless of land ownership. If you enforce your own rules with a reasonable amount of consistency, this won't be an issue (and LL will probably give you a warning if they don't like how you do things). While the land owners have the tools, a single misuse won't constitute a violation, but a pattern of misuse would constitute a violation. To put it in Orwellian terms: Land owners are more equal then visitors but they are not supreme. Most land owners in SL & RL understand this, it isn't a problem for them and they post the rules for their property. In my town, the local Wendy's has a no-shirt, no-shoes, no-service policy. Many places have no-loitering rules posted. Or parking lots outside some businesses "Parking for shoppers of *insert name* store may park here, all others will be towed at owners expense." In many states it is illegal to wave a gun at people. Likewise if you do that in a night club in SL, the police won't be called but you may find yourself ejected & banned from the club. This rule isn't typically stated but it makes sense when put in perspective. Land owners can get away with just about anything in RL & SL if they can post reasonable rules that allow it. Some rules do not require posting, such as don't violate the CS or TOS. And it should always be remembered that everyone is bound by the CS & TOS.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
- Cyril Connolly
Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence.
- James Nachtwey
|
|
Daisy Rimbaud
Registered User
Join date: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 764
|
12-12-2006 08:12
From: Broccoli Curry When a person owns land, they have the absolute right to allow or eject anyone they wish, at any time, for any or no reason. You have no automatic right of access to anywhere in Second Life.
If I decided that I didn't want anyone with blonde hair on any land I owned, that is my right. Period. And suppose you decide you don't want anyone on your land with dark skin and curly hair? Or anyone whose name ends in -stein? How's that going to play? |
|
Broccoli Curry
I am my alt's alt's alt.
Join date: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
12-12-2006 08:21
From: Daisy Rimbaud And suppose you decide you don't want anyone on your land with dark skin and curly hair? Or anyone whose name ends in -stein? How's that going to play? Honestly, I don't know. I've not seen 'directed discrimination' except perhaps the "human in furry sim" or "furry in gorean sim" - but even that isn't really direct discrimination in a specific sense. If someone said "no avatars with dark skin" then I guess that would be considered racist - but "no human avatars" is more "speciesist", which I don't think the ToS covers. As I've previously said, if someone doesn't want me on their land for whatever reason, then I'll just take my business and money elsewhere, and make sure that people know about it. Broccoli |
|
Shep Korvin
The Lucky Chair Guy
Join date: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 305
|
12-12-2006 08:48
From: someone If as a land owner you make an ass of yourself with uneven rule enforcement, you may find yourself on the wrong side of the CS. Has anybody _ever_ had an AR enforced against them for having an inconsistant ban enforcement policy??? I find that hard to believe. In fact, I've seen many Linden comments re-inforcing the fact that land bans are entirely at the whim and discretion of the owner. eg: "Someone doesn't have to state the reasons why they banned you — as hurtful as it may be, it's their own land, and they have the right to do this. Landowners aren't obligated to give a reason for banning."/139/03/152561/1.html |
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
12-12-2006 10:37
From: Daisy Rimbaud And suppose you decide you don't want anyone on your land with dark skin and curly hair? Or anyone whose name ends in -stein? How's that going to play? Well in a free society, it would be allowed. What good is freedom of association without the freedom to not associate. But in SL we play by LL's rules. Forced relationships or commerce is just as if not more evil than discrimination. |
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
12-12-2006 10:51
From: Chris Norse Well in a free society, it would be allowed. What good is freedom of association without the freedom to not associate. But in SL we play by LL's rules. Forced relationships or commerce is just as if not more evil than discrimination. I think it's been raised before that it is not "racism" in SL to refuse dark-skinned avatars, because the color of your skin in SL is just an avatar setting, not a race. But it was a while back, and it was context dependent (eg, it's not ok to make a Nazi sim), so I'm not sure how it turned out.. |
|
Gordon Wendt
404 - User not found
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1,024
|
12-19-2006 21:21
From: someone
If I decided that I didn't want anyone with blonde hair on any land I owned, that is my right. Period.
I assume your just using it as an example and speaking hypothetically. This approach would never work though because your ban list would be full after a very short time if you had any significant amount of traffic. |
|
Gordon Wendt
404 - User not found
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1,024
|
12-19-2006 21:23
From: Yumi Murakami I think it's been raised before that it is not "racism" in SL to refuse dark-skinned avatars, because the color of your skin in SL is just an avatar setting, not a race. But it was a while back, and it was context dependent (eg, it's not ok to make a Nazi sim), so I'm not sure how it turned out.. Your correct in that you can't have an openly Nazi or discriminatory sim name or description but as long as you keep it out of signs and descriptions the Lindens can't really do much to enforce it unless your reported and as raised above your protected if that happens by the common argument that owners can do pretty much anything they want on their land. |
|
Little Gray
Registered User
Join date: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 48
|
US Rights and Regulations Probably Do Apply to In Game Conduct
12-20-2006 02:48
After re-reading the esteemed Judge Richard Posner's response to a request for quidance as to general legal principals for "constitutionally permissible counter-terrorism in the metaverse" from his recent talk in SL ( http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/12/the_second_life.html) its pretty clear that Judge Posner believes US laws, or at least certain laws, do apply to conduct in second life: "There is I believe no legal impediment to an FBI special agent enrolling in Second Life under an avatar that would not identify him as an agent. The general rule is that if a building or other area is open to the public, anyone can enter if he adheres to the rules of the owner, but the owner cannot bar an investigator who does not resort to coercion or other distinctive police methods of investigation." Of course Judge Posner did not specify which particular constitutional provisions he was referring to, and, and it is ambiguous whether his response only concerns law enforcement, but, courts have upheld, I believe, 'the general rule that if a building or other area is open to the public, anyone can enter if he adheres to the rules of the owner' on First Amendment grounds, at least in part. At some level, it appears that other legal scholars agree with me that U.S. Constitutional principles do apply to Second Life. The fact that the Judge relates or equates SL, for the purpose of legal analysis, to a 'building or other area held open to the public,' paves the way for the application of Pruneyard to Second Life. Little Gray SL Avatar Civil Liveberties Union (Now at Boggabri AND Commonwealth Island) |
|
Elgyfu Wishbringer
The Pootler
Join date: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 659
|
12-20-2006 08:26
Might I suggest that you follow the real life practice for such situations and post notices in the mall clarifying the preferred 'dress code'?
Then if someone is breaking that code, and does not wish to comply (after having said notice politely pointed out to them), well, then you are totally above board asking them to leave, making them do so if necessary.
After all, a person in a mature sim in a game played by only 18s (theoretically) may not realise that their appearance would be considered an issue when they have been wandering around like it for ages.
|
|
Elex Dusk
Bunneh
Join date: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 800
|
12-20-2006 15:33
From: Elgyfu Wishbringer Might I suggest that you follow the real life practice for such situations and post notices in the mall clarifying the preferred 'dress code'?
Then if someone is breaking that code, and does not wish to comply (after having said notice politely pointed out to them), well, then you are totally above board asking them to leave, making them do so if necessary.
After all, a person in a mature sim in a game played by only 18s (theoretically) may not realise that their appearance would be considered an issue when they have been wandering around like it for ages. And then... after the person gets popped for violating the rules they can wail and wail that they didn't read the sign. That lets them off the hook, right? Actually, it doesn't. When you're on someone else's property in SL you're under their rules whether they posted them or not. The parcel holder is not under an obligation to use their resources to post rules. Word of advice: If you're on land that you, yourself, don't own... then you're most likely on someone else's land whether it's LL's or that of another resident. A resident's personal liberties only extend to their own parcel, if they have one, and to the Commons within SL (if there is one) and _always_ within the filter of the Terms of Service and Community Standards. For example, if a resident wanders onto a commercial parcel and begins soliciting (or engages in any form of commercial speech) without asking the parcel holder for permission first, the holder of the parcel is under no obligation to take that individual aside and gently explain to them using the special Explanation Puppets (that the Lindens have generously provided in the Libraries of our Inventories) that soliciting and selling without permission on the parcel is a "naughty no no". The parcel holder can simply eject and ban them for soliciting without permission. |
|
Jopsy Pendragon
Perpetual Outsider
Join date: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,906
|
12-20-2006 17:56
Too many specific points to respond to... I'll skip quoting them.
I consider the following statements true:
My land in SecondLife is my PRIVATE PROPERTY that I lease from LL.
I may keep it open to the public, but it is not "Public Property".
I reserve the right to refuse access to anyone, for any reason,
and without having to justify, notify or explain my actions.
(I limit myself to the built-in freeze and eject&ban options,
and don't bother with orbiters/client-crashers/cages.)
No one gets 'special treatment' by just saying they're an
officer of the law. Real World identification is required,
and possibly even a warrant.
I do not post rules. It is a PG area, those rules apply.
The only universal rule that I insist upon and adhere to is this:
"Respect the host, or go elsewhere."
That said...
I respect my visitors and their wide range of activities and
interests, as long as that respect is mutual all is well.
I *rarely* eject&ban, most people seem seem to respond
well when asked not to "shoot at unarmed visitors." Or to
explore the mature sim next door if they feel like wearing
certain prims in public.
|
|
Nigel Durnan
Registered User
Join date: 8 Sep 2006
Posts: 53
|
??
12-21-2006 14:18
Little Gray wrote:
"There is I believe no legal impediment to an FBI special agent enrolling in Second Life under an avatar that would not identify him as an agent. The general rule is that if a building or other area is open to the public, anyone can enter if he adheres to the rules of the owner, but the owner cannot bar an investigator who does not resort to coercion or other distinctive police methods of investigation."
I do believe the inability to bar law enforcement only applies when law enforcement identifies itself as such and has a legitimate law enforcement purpose for being on the property. An undercover agent is not holding himself out as a cop, so therefore, could be banned (as he is impersonating a regular person), but under the same criteria set up for the regular people.
In other words, an undercover FBI agent dressed as a hooker walks into my bar while not wearing shoes. I have a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign, and I ask him to leave. I have no way of knowing he's a cop. He's a hooker as far as I can tell. Unless he identifies himself as a cop, he's got to leave because he's not wearing shoes.
I ban people from my land when they grief me and I don't tell them why. I ban people who leave trash on my land, and I don't tell them why. It's not violent, it's a boundary. They are welcome to IM me if they want to know why.
I respect your arguments for the sake of them Little Gray, but I think this one fails. Private land owners in RL, who are not operating businesses, have the right to eject whomever they wish, with the exception of law enforcement with a warrant. If RL law applies, private land owners in SL abiding by the TOS and CS have a right to eject whomever they like. And until I see a warrant for my virtual house, the FBI can kiss my ass, lol.
**ponders what a RL judge would think of a warrant for an SL house**
|
|
Angelique LaFollette
Registered User
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,595
|
12-21-2006 19:03
From: Broccoli Curry Honestly, I don't know. I've not seen 'directed discrimination' except perhaps the "human in furry sim" or "furry in gorean sim" - but even that isn't really direct discrimination in a specific sense.
If someone said "no avatars with dark skin" then I guess that would be considered racist - but "no human avatars" is more "speciesist", which I don't think the ToS covers.
As I've previously said, if someone doesn't want me on their land for whatever reason, then I'll just take my business and money elsewhere, and make sure that people know about it.
Broccoli I can attest to the Goreans Aversion to Non-Humans, I was asked th Change my eye colour because it didn't fit thier Feelings on what constituted Human and i was a Resident there. I've never been discriminated against because of being Human on a Furry Sim. In ALL the Time though, i have seen Many Furries asked, or Told to Change, or Leave various Gorean Sims, and Never once have i heard of the Sim Owner being Disciplined because of it. The rights of the Property Owner Seem to be Upheld against the Freedom of Choice of the Guest Avatar. Angel. |
|
Little Gray
Registered User
Join date: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 48
|
Private Property v. Public & Business Property
12-24-2006 13:29
My comments, and those of Judge Posner, are limited to land owners who hold their property open to the public ... businesses who invite people onto their property. Private property owners do not need to provide 'reasonable accesss' to permit persons to engage in free speech activities on the private property owners' land. Should we be making distinctions between businesses that hold their property open to anyone (e.g. malls, parks, sandboxes) and owners that hold their property out only to people that are willing to abide by certain role-playing rules (e.g. Goreans)? One would argue that Goreans give up their rights to free speech and due process by voluntarily submitting to the Gorean code of conduct. But, from a legal perspective, isn't this like a RL Shopping Mall posting rules rules at the entrance limiting constiutitional rights; that might not be legal, at least in California. I suggest testing this theory by wearing starfleet federation clothing Gor sims and telling the Gorean Overlords to go shove it -- your just exercising your right to free speech. At least it would be enjoyable to watch the mayhem.  |
|
Elex Dusk
Bunneh
Join date: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 800
|
12-24-2006 14:19
From: Little Gray I suggest testing this theory by wearing starfleet federation clothing Gor sims and telling the Gorean Overlords to go shove it -- your just exercising your right to free speech. At least it would be enjoyable to watch the mayhem. Errr... you're encouraging people to interfere with Gorean role-playing while within a Gorean sim which could be viewed as a violation of the Terms of Service (specifically: harassment). |
|
Gummi Richthofen
Fetish's Frasier Crane!
Join date: 3 Oct 2006
Posts: 605
|
12-25-2006 05:20
From: Angelique LaFollette The rights of the Property Owner Seem to be Upheld against the Freedom of Choice of the Guest Avatar.
Angel. Sure; and if you don't like that, buy some land... |
|
Angelique LaFollette
Registered User
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,595
|
12-25-2006 20:43
From: Gummi Richthofen Sure; and if you don't like that, buy some land... I didn't express an Opinion For or against it Chere, i merely stated the Condition as it exists. Remembering that SL is an Open Form Game, LL has allowed people to set up Game environments, and set requirements within the bounds of thier own Property. I've seen it done well, in a Non confrontational Fashion, and i've seen it become Very Closed and Hostile. I don't think it's the Condition as such that is either good, or Bad, i think it's How the Individual Owners deal with the authority that they have been Given that Determines whether it is a Positive thing or Not. Angel. |
|
Conan Godwin
In ur base kilin ur d00ds
Join date: 2 Aug 2006
Posts: 3,676
|
12-26-2006 05:46
From: Little Gray As a civil rights lawyer and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I feel compelled to argue -- at least for the sake of discussion -- against the common consensus, which appears to be that, landowners have an absolute, unqualified, right to do whatever they want on their property. In a nutshell, granting such broad powers to property provides no incentive for property owners to behave in a respectful and courteous manner. So often we hear something like, "well yeah, the owner maybe should not have acted precisely the way he did, but, he's or she has the complete right to kick someone of their property." The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is disruptive to the overall well-being of the community. People ejected by property owners who are not as courteous or respectful to others as they might be if they were required to at least provide some basic level of dignity, only too often return to the scene of the ejectment .. either with innocent motives to find out why they were ejected or to gather their bearings (its a disorientating experience if you haven't been ejected), or to seek some revenge or retribution. Violence begets more violence. Someone who has been ejected without first being asked to leave or stop their offensive conduct, or someone who TP's into a place they have been invited (i.e. events) only to be ejected without notice because they are not wearing the right tag, might believe that that kind of conduct is appropriate. It prevents us from being able to truly explore ourselves and our expression unjustifyably harsh measures would be taken against us, and/or, from expanding our awareness of other cultures and belief systems, making us more socially closed and hegemonic.
Tolerance and respect for others should be at the forefront of any issue. You shouldn't say a landowner can do whatever they want. The focus should be upon specific facts in a case by case basis without drawing inflexible, hardline, rules. In this case, it would appropriate for the topless gal to be ejected if she refused to wear a top or leave after being told that she would be ejected if she didn't change or leave. What if the gal had been at a beach where topless bathing is permitted (similar to the customs of many modern countries and cultures) and simply followed a friends TP? Unless there were signs or notecards prominently posted prohibiting toplessness, and a 'reasonable person' would have seen such signs, it would not be appropriate for the owner to simply eject her.
Little Gray
SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union I said something here and changed my mind, so have deleted it. |
|
Conan Godwin
In ur base kilin ur d00ds
Join date: 2 Aug 2006
Posts: 3,676
|
12-26-2006 05:56
From: Little Gray As a civil rights lawyer and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I feel compelled to argue -- at least for the sake of discussion -- against the common consensus, which appears to be that, landowners have an absolute, unqualified, right to do whatever they want on their property. In a nutshell, granting such broad powers to property provides no incentive for property owners to behave in a respectful and courteous manner. So often we hear something like, "well yeah, the owner maybe should not have acted precisely the way he did, but, he's or she has the complete right to kick someone of their property." The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is disruptive to the overall well-being of the community. People ejected by property owners who are not as courteous or respectful to others as they might be if they were required to at least provide some basic level of dignity, only too often return to the scene of the ejectment .. either with innocent motives to find out why they were ejected or to gather their bearings (its a disorientating experience if you haven't been ejected), or to seek some revenge or retribution. Violence begets more violence. Someone who has been ejected without first being asked to leave or stop their offensive conduct, or someone who TP's into a place they have been invited (i.e. events) only to be ejected without notice because they are not wearing the right tag, might believe that that kind of conduct is appropriate. It prevents us from being able to truly explore ourselves and our expression unjustifyably harsh measures would be taken against us, and/or, from expanding our awareness of other cultures and belief systems, making us more socially closed and hegemonic.
Tolerance and respect for others should be at the forefront of any issue. You shouldn't say a landowner can do whatever they want. The focus should be upon specific facts in a case by case basis without drawing inflexible, hardline, rules. In this case, it would appropriate for the topless gal to be ejected if she refused to wear a top or leave after being told that she would be ejected if she didn't change or leave. What if the gal had been at a beach where topless bathing is permitted (similar to the customs of many modern countries and cultures) and simply followed a friends TP? Unless there were signs or notecards prominently posted prohibiting toplessness, and a 'reasonable person' would have seen such signs, it would not be appropriate for the owner to simply eject her.
Little Gray
SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union While I agree with what you;re saying in part, the fact is this can never and should never be enforced. Yes, there are right ways and wrong ways to behave in both SL and RL, but ultimately one can never legislate to enforce politeness - and that's basically what you're saying LL should do. Imagine if the RL government passed a law to say that every man should hold open the door for a lady. Yes, it's the right thing to do but it is not the place of the state to enforce standards of courtesy beyond ensuring that people are prevented from causing physical harm to one another. Courtesy, when enforced, loses all meaning and therefore all value. |
|
Conan Godwin
In ur base kilin ur d00ds
Join date: 2 Aug 2006
Posts: 3,676
|
12-26-2006 06:10
From: Little Gray After re-reading the esteemed Judge Richard Posner's response to a request for quidance as to general legal principals for "constitutionally permissible counter-terrorism in the metaverse" from his recent talk in SL ( http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/12/the_second_life.html) its pretty clear that Judge Posner believes US laws, or at least certain laws, do apply to conduct in second life: "There is I believe no legal impediment to an FBI special agent enrolling in Second Life under an avatar that would not identify him as an agent. The general rule is that if a building or other area is open to the public, anyone can enter if he adheres to the rules of the owner, but the owner cannot bar an investigator who does not resort to coercion or other distinctive police methods of investigation." Of course Judge Posner did not specify which particular constitutional provisions he was referring to, and, and it is ambiguous whether his response only concerns law enforcement, but, courts have upheld, I believe, 'the general rule that if a building or other area is open to the public, anyone can enter if he adheres to the rules of the owner' on First Amendment grounds, at least in part. At some level, it appears that other legal scholars agree with me that U.S. Constitutional principles do apply to Second Life. The fact that the Judge relates or equates SL, for the purpose of legal analysis, to a 'building or other area held open to the public,' paves the way for the application of Pruneyard to Second Life. Little Gray SL Avatar Civil Liveberties Union (Now at Boggabri AND Commonwealth Island) SL is not in the United States. The servers are, but the program running on them does not have a physical existence. Linden Labs operate their business in the USA, so US federal and Californian state laws apply to them and their conduct both in SL and RL. My PC is in the UK, therefore UK law applies to me and my conduct in SL, not US law. I can ban an FBI, CIA or NSA agent. I can ban the head of the FBI. I can ban a senator or congressman. I can ban the president if the urge takes me. Naturally, Linden Labs will probably be compelled by US law to cooperate with an FBI investigation, and may then override my ban, but that is not me being compelled by US law, that is LL being compelled by it - which is right and proper as they are operating in the USA. The FBI could, physically, break into my real life house in the UK if they wanted to (and were willing to pay their own air fare) - that does not mean they are legally allowed to, merely that they physically can. Likewise, I could break into Linden Labs HQ if the urge took me, but I would have no legal grounds to justify it. Having the ability to perform an action does not necessarily mean one has the legal right to. In summary - US law governs how LL and and SL user in the USA behave, but I am not physically in the USA (right now I am in Wales infact) and am governed therefore by the laws of the country I am physically in. |
|
Dillon Morenz
Registered User
Join date: 21 May 2006
Posts: 85
|
12-26-2006 07:00
From: Conan Godwin SL is not in the United States. Second Life runs on servers in the United States. You might login to Second Life from remote, international locations, but in doing so you don't make it exist in those locations anymore than you make the microsoft.com webserver exist in Pontypridd when you view it from an internet café there. From: Conan Godwin The servers are, but the program running on them does not have a physical existence. Bitcode stored on (and executed from) a hard disk doesn't have a physical existence? That's news to me. From: Conan Godwin My PC is in the UK, therefore UK law applies to me and my conduct in SL, not US law. If you misuse servers located in another country, it is quite possilble you are violating the laws of that country. The UK's National Hi-Tech Crime Unit has certainly arrested Britons in the past for such crimes and even worked with the FBI on cases which saw those individuals extradited. |
|
cinda Hoodoo
my 2cents worth
Join date: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
12-26-2006 17:09
From: Little Gray So often we hear something like, "well yeah, the owner maybe should not have acted precisely the way he did, but, he's or she has the complete right to kick someone of their property." The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is disruptive to the overall well-being of the community. Little Gray
SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union I tell ya what, where im from civil liberties are based on who pays for the land, who owns the land, and i for one will NOT be told that i have to deal with a griefer or anyone else on my land i dont want there for the "good of the community" thank you |
|
Elex Dusk
Bunneh
Join date: 19 Oct 2004
Posts: 800
|
12-27-2006 13:04
From: Little Gray What if the gal had been at a beach where topless bathing is permitted (similar to the customs of many modern countries and cultures) and simply followed a friends TP? Unless there were signs or notecards prominently posted prohibiting toplessness, and a 'reasonable person' would have seen such signs, it would not be appropriate for the owner to simply eject her. Prior to accepting the teleport the person had an opportunity to put some clothes on. It is unlikely that they would be so infirm as to be unable to compose an Instant Message to the person sending them the teleport of "Wait a minute... gotta get dressed first." A 'reasonable person' would know that upon leaving a nude beach they need to get dressed. Upon a resident's arrival the parcel holder is not required to telepathically determine where a resident was before arriving. Nor are they required to use their resources to post signage covering every possible "What if..." situation that might arise when residents use poor judgement. Based on such logic parcel holders would also be required to make dressing rooms available for the never ending stream of 'reasonable persons' arriving nude. It would be completely appropriate for the parcel holder to eject the nude resident with no warning upon their arrival. A lack of common sense does not trump the rights of the parcel holder to manage their parcel as they see fit. |
|
Krazzora Zaftig
Do you have my marbles?
Join date: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 649
|
12-27-2006 13:29
My understanding of the rules is as long as it stays under the rating. PG has to stay PG or more conservative no matter what or you CAN AR the land owner. Mature as far as content is concerned is up to that specific land owner so long as it does not interfere with the general well being of SL or the populous. This rule has many a time been used by W-Hat and their "shows of art" or "political statements".
The only issue I have ever seen that differs is the ability to control it (mainland vs Private Islands) and suppossedly the enforcement of it (PIs need no warnings before TPing home.)
|