A General Question About Clarity

First off, I am not a Linden Lab basher. I like SL, its a wonderful toy [for me] and I applaud the skill and vision that went into creating and operating it. If I didn't think it was worth it, I would sell off or give off, leave and be done with it. I am not even close to that. Is SL or LL perfect? Nooo, far from it. Are there issues or practices that I have been or still am critical of? Yes, and I have generally said so in a civil manner.

One thing that seems to sorely lacking, especially in light of recent events is CLARITY. In other words, the good folks at LL need to be quite a bit more clear in their communications with us, the customers.

First, we have the sexual age play thing. Although Robin Harper seems to have finally cleared up what the LL policy is vis a vis/ child avaters recently, for the longest time, no one seemed tohave any idea of where the limits are.

Second, the lower court decision in the Bragg case indicates that at least one Federal trial court has ruled that the TOS is in part unenforceable and MAY be entirely invalid.

Third the recent Blog post by Daniel Linden, despite allegations to the contrary, is OBVIOUSLY andmanifestly contradictory to portions of LL's TOS and/or Community Standards.

Fourth, I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of California and the US District Courts of California's Central District. [Southern California, except for San Diego and Imperial Counties] As a practicing attorney and some one with at least slightly above average intelligence and fairly good communications skills in the English language, I am completely unable to even GUESS at what activities, practices or verbiage LL may find to be "broadly offensive." I would be completey unable to give a client advice on this matter, given what I have to work with which is the TOS, CS and various & sundry comments and actions by Linden people. Heck, I can't even figure out for myself what the boundaries are. Fortunately, I am pretty vanilla, so probably run no risk of being banned or having my stuff confiscated. Others aren't that fortunate.

I DO believe that if LL plans to continue banning and confiscating property belonging to people who somehow run afoul if the poorly defined [more accurately un defined] term "broadly offensive" they need to either be prepared for more decisions or even verdicts similar to the ruling handed down inthe Bragg case or to rewrite theTOS and CS.

I think the smart thing to do is for LL to start CLEARLY defining with as much specificity as humanly possible what offenses, behavior,verbiage etc. could possibly get one banned or virtual property confiscated.

I believe the HUGE majority of customers concerned over this, even the ones who may be close to the line on bannable oofenses are desperately crying out for just sort of guidance.

OK Strife, here's the question that is seeking a resident answer in this forum: What does the community want to see vis a vis' community standards in regards to what is or what is not "broadly offensive"? Also, what is the best way to communicate the answer to that question to Linden Labs?

IF there are any Linden people reading this, I certainly appreciate your comments!!!

Thanks for reading this.

I agree they need to be more clear with all of their communications with customers. I also think their intent is to keep from being thought police as far as the whole ageplay/rape RP/broadly offensive thing goes.

Unfortunately they can't keep from policing SL to a certain extent if they want to retain (or acheive depending on how you look at it) their image of a creative utopia where there is a free exchange if ideas and money.

I think the Bragg case is irrelevant in this situation because it hasn't been decided yet. I think people are just grabbing at straws to find some sign of LL falling off whenever they bring that case up.

I think the Germans and the French took them off guard and they're hurrying to get a response out instead of coming up with a cohesive strategy to address the situation. That would explain all the vague language they've been using.

Who knows?

The Bragg case is relevant, but not to the degree that many people think it is. The case law cited and the analysis thereof by the judge will be ammunition used in both trial briefs and even jury instructions [so far as the case law] in potential actions all over the US. If a jury decides the Bragg case, it will have virtually no legal relevance so far as establishing precedent. The Appeals Courts do that and this case isn't even close to an Appeal yet.

From what VERY little I know of the actual case, I think there is a very good chance LL will prevail and rightfully so. I don't know all the facts and I certainly have no idea what the evidence admitted at trial will be.

...thus making the aforementioned ruling irrelevant. This case isn't over so no definite prescendents have been set in stone.

If you watch the video with Daniel Linden, it becomes clear why everything is vague (and will become even more vague if left up to him).

LL doesn't want clear definitions, because the inevitable result is that people will dance on the edge or just over it while loudly proclaiming that it's within the rules and they're in the clear. Having undefined rules means they have a great deal of leeway in handling everything since they can't rule wrong and they don't need to be consistant in how they handle anything.

It may not be LEGALLY relevant yet, but is certainly FACTUALLY relevant. HOWEVER, it is indicative of the reasoning of one federal court. Federal judges GENERALLY are not stupid. What I am saying is, to use an anology, this may be indicia of which way the legal wind is blowing.

It's fact only that it actually happened. That doesn't matter if it gets overturned at a higher court and upheld in all appeals.

One judge does not a legal wind make!

Very true for the time being. However that strategy will haunt them if and when future lawsuits happen and they are confronted with judges and/or jurors who can no more make heads or tails over their terms of service than the customers can. That situation is one I do not think LL wants to be in.

Squeeze, you seem to be missing my point entirely. Perhaps it is due to me not being clear myself. Let me take one more stab at it. The field of internet law is relatively new. There are not a lot of appelate court decisions to draw from and probably nothing exactly on point. The reasonaing adopted by the US judge in PA very well could be PERSUASIVE to other judges, both at the trial and appelate levels in rendering thier opinions and rulings.

Is it a precedent? No, at least not beyond whatever Fed. district in PA the case is being heard in and even then maybe not. Is it relevant? I guess youhave to define relevant. Legally relevant in the strictest interpretation of the word? Probably not. However in other cases concerning validity of TOSes both the cases and the reasoning behind the ruling WILL be cited and used by advocates and possibly adopted by other judges, at least until an on point appellate decision comes down. If I were one of LL's lawyers, and I'm not and am not going to be, I would be paying a LOT of attention to it.