Duranske Blasts New Linden Policy on the “Broadly Offensive”
by Alphaville Herald on 10/06/07 at 9:06 pm
Just wondering: Who on gopod’s green pixilated earth is in charge of Linden Lab’s legal policy and why do they seem to be on a mission to destroy the company? First, there was the Bragg vs. Linden Lab fiasco, which anyone who has been paying attention would have seen as an obvious legal trap for the Lindens. Now there is the new kneejerk reaction to the problem of ageplay in Second Life, and the Linden’s new policy that they are going to remove “broadly offensive content”, ban people for such content, and enlist the population of Second Life as abuse reporting comrades to police and edit the content of this world.
Setting aside issues of morality for the moment, what is the problem with the policy? Well, according to our friend Benjamin Duranske in Legally Blind, not only is the policy “a poorly considered, dangerously over-broad, and annoyingly opaque policy statement” that “on its face prohibits every military simulation in Second Life” but worse, the Lindens have actually opened themselves up to criminal prosecution by this move. How so? Well very simple:
“it potentially takes Linden Lab out from under the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and thereby exposes it to liability for Second Life users’ creations.” More below the fold. –Uri
Here is the problem: In a recent court ruling involving Roomates.com, it has been ruled that by virtue of the service using matching software and thereby editing their content, they may no longer be exempt from the provisions of the Communications Decency Act. The situation is summed up nicely in VTOR, citing IP lawyer Michael Bennett.
“If you guide the content too much, or select which of the content will be allowed, you could lose immunity for that portion of the content and be held liable as a publisher,” Bennett said. “The problem arises when nonpublishing Web sites want to put up blogs and forums. Typically, they want to guide the content to some extent, so that it reflects an appropriate image for the site and company.”
All of which calls into the question of the Linden’s recent sweeping content wipes, reported recently by the Blingsider’s Tateru Ninu and also in the Grid Grind (which includes the fascinating revelation that you can’t even say you are NOT a casino in your description).
Apart from opening themselves to legal exposure Duranske raises serious concerns about the new policy. I hope Ben will forgive me for quoting at length, because his comments are that good:
The most glaring problem with the “Keeping Second Life Safe, Together” post is that it represents, at best, a half-baked policy statement. For example, the prohibition on “extreme or graphic violence” on its face prohibits every military simulation in Second Life. ‘Robin Linden’ subsequently clarified that “extreme violence implies extreme, disgusting, beyond-the-pale imagery, such as rotten.com-style images of violent death, not videogame-style carnage,” but I don’t buy it. Does that mean that if a simulation looks like Hitman it’s okay, but if it looks like Hostel it isn’t? How is watching someone get shot in the face more acceptable than watching someone get slashed with a meat cleaver?
And “depictions of sexual violence?” What does that even mean? Would a showing of Secretary be prohibited? On its face, the policy puts every BDSM-themed area in Second Life in violation. Consider this: depictions of sexual violence are allowed in real life — using people’s actual bodies. The practice is so broadly unoffensive that there is a street fair devoted to it every year in Linden Lab’s own backyard.
But most troubling, in my opinion, is the shiny-happy-people doublespeak that’s being used to defend this move; it’s a new tactic for Linden Lab, which I’d always thought of as refreshingly honest as far as corporations go. Even the title of the post in question is deceptive — what does “safety” have to do with “offensiveness” in the first place? It gets worse. ‘Robin Linden’ defended the move during her office hour by asking, “When faced with an opportunity to create a new world where things are supposed to be better, do you think there’s a place for slavery, forced sex, and the like?” First off, I don’t think that Second Life is a “new world where things are supposed to be better,” I think it’s a three-dimensional communication tool that simulates an environment we’re familiar with, but if you want to play that game, I’ll take the question. You’re damn right there’s a place for it — just like there is in a public library, an art gallery, and a history book.
Your “new world where things are supposed to be better” should not include censorship of the expression of ideas based on what you say your citizens want to see and hear about, even if you do think it’s for our own good. Because even if you are right about this policy this time — and you emphatically are not — the next guy might decide to ban political commentary or art that criticizes religion, and your policy sets the precedent. This is political theory 101 stuff, and if you’re going to act like this is a nation, you better start there.
Amen.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 10th, 2007
Benjamin would have a case, if the Lindens themselves had defined what is “broadly offensive,” which they appeared to do before with their TOS/CS. But they don’t. Once again, they tell us, “You’re world, your imagination,” and if you find something offensive, you AR them, and if enough people AR them, they comply. Long before there were German police, they came up with the notecard saying that because the community didn’t like it, they wanted to remove “ageplay”. So my point is that they invoke the community falsely for their own agenda, but they do that precisely to be able to have an “out” — it’s not them making policy and editing the world, it’s “the community”.
>First off, I don’t think that Second Life is a “new world where things are supposed to be better,” I think it’s a three-dimensional communication tool that simulates an environment we’re familiar with, but if you want to play that game, I’ll take the question. You’re damn right there’s a place for it — just like there is in a public library, an art gallery, and a history book.
I don’t know why Benjamin needs to be so Calvinist about this. I had a long debate with him in world. He thinks SL is like email with an attachment — his avatar isn’t anything special, just a thingie to talk with. If it is deleted tomorrow, who cares? He’ll use AIM. Etc.
I don’t mind if someone treats SL that way, and if SL is experienced by them that way. That’s fine. But what I really will resist is their imposing that definition as if it is “reality” and everybody else is in “a fantasy”. I find it particularly humorous for somebody like Benjamin to give me the tekkie literalist treatment with “it’s only a communication tool like email” and “there’s no world,” etc. and then tell me….he wouldn’t mind if there were brains in a vat, hooked up to the singularity etc. etc. Now who’s got a fantasy???!!!
Many of those augmentationists who want to de-bunk the world make that mistake — treating virtuality as fantasy. Virtuality is real, and not fantasy for everyone, only for some. Virtuality is another mode of being. Someone might not buy that; that’s fine, but they don’t have the right to constantly insist on their take as any more legitimate or real.
>Your “new world where things are supposed to be better” should not include censorship of the expression of ideas based on what you say your citizens want to see and hear about, even if you do think it’s for our own good.
I’d tend to agree, but I do point out that the Lindens didn’t censor anything sexual yet, besides banning 2 German “ageplayer” members who were caught with RL porn. We can’t expect them to do anything else but that.
And they’ve removed 108 pages of ads of casino content mainly, though a few “ageplayers” may have been included. They are doing nothign more than any corporation — including Benjamin’s law firm — or web site owner — would do in removing things from their website or networ or email system. The reason that Benjamin can cry to the Herald, “Warn me when you have NSFW on the front page!” is because, well, it’s not safe for work. Benjamin doesn’t feel his firm, or anybody’s work, or school, or home, is censorious for doing so. The First Amendment still obtains. It obtains where it obtains, which doesn’t mean blanket application where some organizations wish to chose what they tolerate.
I’ve been talking to lawyers a great deal about this, and I haven’t found a one that concedes LL is a common carrier, and not a club.
>Because even if you are right about this policy this time — and you emphatically are not — the next guy might decide to ban political commentary or art that criticizes religion, and your policy sets the precedent. This is political theory 101 stuff, and if you’re going to act like this is a nation, you better start there.
Well, I’m glad that Mr. Noble, who can bang on me for perceiving SL as a world, can now double back, when convenient in this argument, and whoops, call Philip Linden on his “it’s a country” and “nation” stuff. Good! So if it’s going to be a nation then…which nation, Benjamin? Why *must* it be America? It could be the EU. And there they have different laws. Laws set by what the community found as broadly offensive.
Again, let me note that I don’t see either Urizenus Sklar or Benjamin Noble rushing to Clickable Culture and protesting that I was banned for my open discussion of these matters. So far it isn’t the Lindens banning people for expression on this subject, but Tony Walsh. And why? Well, either they wish to avoid controversy or, more likely, they think that a blogger can decide to ban whomever he wants, it’s his blog, he’s paying for the server, or owns it.
Like the Lindens.
Myrrh Massiel
Jun 11th, 2007
…precisely, uri…
…that’s why linden lab’s new policies of intolerance have imperilled *everyone* on the grid, regardless of their own behavior, from the moment linden lab assumed editorial control over residents’ behavior, preempting applicable jurisdictions and surrendering common carrier status – if the grid itself gets shut down, we all lose…
Benjamin Duranske (avatar 'Benjamin Noble')
Jun 11th, 2007
The lengthy quote is fine; I’m glad to see these ideas getting broader exposure here.
As to the comments of ‘Prokofy Neva,’ I’m choosing not to engage in a back and forth with him in the comments — either here or at VB. That’s just my personal call, and it’s not entirely specific to ‘Prokofy.’ I just think it is too easy for lengthy debates in comments between individuals to detract from the bigger picture issues, so I choose not to engage in them. I’ll let the piece stand on its own, and let whatever comments follow go where they may.
Particular to these comments though, I should note that I’m somewhat resentful that ‘Prokofy’ is summarizing a recent personal exchange that took place via IM here without asking me, though I suppose I don’t care that much, given the content. By way of explanation regarding ‘Prokofy’s’ comments, yes, I’m a technology optimist, and I hope one day when my body fails me I can at least be a brain in a vat hooked up to something like an advanced version of Second Life. Then, as I told ‘Prokofy,’ I’d definitely see it as a “nation” or whatever — but until then, Virtual Worlds are mainly communication tools to me. Sorry for getting incredibly sci-fi geeky here, but since ‘Prokofy’ saw fit to talk about our private conversation here, I thought it required a little explanation so I don’t come of as any more of a tin-foil-hat type than I really am. And for the record, that’s the last private conversation we’re going to have, since I now see that conversations with ‘Prokofy’ are just forum fodder. Live and learn, I suppose.
Petey
Jun 11th, 2007
@ Prokofy: “He thinks SL is like email with an attachment — his avatar isn’t anything special, just a thingie to talk with.”
Yes, heaven forbid someone have…what do you call it? A “grip on reality”? A “stunning lack of delusions”?
@Myrrh: “if the grid itself gets shut down, we all lose…”
Yes, we lose the hyperbole. And good riddance.
I’ve been saying for weeks now that this would fall afoul of the CDA. Ben’s got it right, and so does Uri when he says Ginsu must be trying to run SL into the ground. At this point, I’d almost suggest a betting pool. Pick your poison: fradulent advertising (a la Bragg); virtual property theft (a la Bragg); virtual child pornography; virtual gambling; or even, in this case, Internet indecency?
My my my.
Skye Faulkland
Jun 11th, 2007
Like many people I’m looking for a decent alternative to SL primarily due to many of the issues such as those discussed in this article. However, the reality is there are no decent alternatives …yet. Did some research and found some promising things going on as mentioned here: http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/, but no indication on when we will see it in the US market.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 11th, 2007
My God, Benjamin, if you can’t stand behind your views on things like putting your brain in a vat, and you can’t handle yourself as a public figure running a public organization that has grabbed the title the Law Society of Second Life, then what *are* you using this “communication tool” for, private confidential information entrusted only to elites?! Should you stamp your avatar with a message like those lawyer dweebs always put in email, to the effect that “this communication is confidential blah blah blah”?
I wouldn’t think that a belief about putting your brain in a vat is something that is a private, sequestered matter, but which would be part of your public repetoire.
So I repeat, who is the more wacky and immersed and fantastical here? Somebody who accepts that virtuality is a mode of being that is immersive and engaging and has real consequences for the human being, spiritually and materially? Or someone who believes their brain should be kept in a vat for revival after death, who places religious faith in technology?
When you get Urizenus saying “Amen” to a figure who presents himself as credentialed in RL, and who has grabbed titles like “SL Bar Association” and “SL Law Society” to run in SL, and then puts something over like this:
“First off, I don’t think that Second Life is a “new world where things are supposed to be better,” I think it’s a three-dimensional communication tool that simulates an environment we’re familiar with, but if you want to play that game, I’ll take the question. You’re damn right there’s a place for it — just like there is in a public library, an art gallery, and a history book.”
I *sure as hell* will push back, even though I, too, question the Lindens’ “Better World” stuff (I think they need to accurately observe and describe it before they go around hallucinating that it is “better”). I *sure as hell* will quote a conversation inworld that I have absolutely no reason to believe is “private” with a pubilc figure espousing his public positions, as a person representing himself as a voice of authority in SL and being endorsed by the Herald. I contacted you after you public meeting to ask your views on certain issues; if they’ve been prematurely exposed, well, there’s proof of my point that SL isn’t the communication tool you imagine, eh?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see why I have to sit still for this. Otherwise, we all get smothered with this stuff. I *sure as hell* do not want to be smothered and told how I should interpret virtuality, placing it in some narrow-minded and reductive niche like a library shelf. I truly do resent being told I’m a fantasy RPer and nutter merely because I observe and affirm that virtuality is real and has real consequences. It’s no more an illegitimate affirmation than claiming that SL is merely an Internet communication tool.
If you’re going to get all shirty and use expressions like “you’re damn right” and make pronouncements like this, you can be sure I will counter it.
Petey is merely imposing here the usual, predictable W-hat Calvinism and prudishness about anyone who views virtuality other than the reductive and abusive plaything to annoy others anonymously that he does.
Mickey Rooney
Jun 11th, 2007
If I may be a nitpicker…
The argument that just because something happens in the People’s Democratic Republic of San Francisco, that is it acceptable elsewhere in the country.
“Will it play in Peoria” is an old saying in the entertainment industry, meaning will it have broad appeal. Would much of the ..um.. unusual policies and behaviors in the PDRSF “play in Peoria”? Not so much, IMHO.
That said, I agree that the “broadly offensive” criteria of LL is troubling. I agree that SL is not supposed to be a “better world”, but world where we can explore without the burden of our mortal coil.
And if all content that could be offensive having to have a special Adult classification — beyond PG or Mature (PG-13?) — where one has to give up their anonymity to access, how can they deny “broadly offensive” if they are going to quarantine everything broadly offensive to a special area?
Shockwave Yareach
Jun 11th, 2007
Simplified – if LL doesn’t change or limit what its users do or create, then they are protected from prosecution by the “Common Carrier” clause of the law. This is the same clause which states that an ISP is not responsible if a user puts a dirty picture on their webpage. If LL starts censoring and restricting what can and can’t be said or done in its service, it loses that protection and is liable for everything inworld.
From a business side though, LL wants to make SL a business tool and make a fortune. They want everything in it to be SFW. But those who built SL thus far are decidedly NSFW. Thus you have a conflict between the existing crowd and the new crowd. They can’t just cut out the 4Million customers and their wallets, and they can’t attract new businesses with the Anything Goes crowd in place. Catch 22.
The solution is to abandon the attempt to clean up the existing world and instead create a new mainland within it, one that is business oriented and squeaky clean. Our existing world becomes the “Wild West” where the current players live in SL as they always have. The characters already in world are grandfathered as “Adult” as well. All NEW players have to to through age-verification (without SSN and Driver license numbers) and the new continent gets called “Civilization”. To enter the Wild West, you’ll have to either be an existing player, or age verify. All new players can enter Civilization without any verification at all. You then have a business climate and a game climate within the same framework while claiming Common Carrier protection at the same time.
the only shortcoming will be the potential for underaged players in the existing crowd. Their status can be changed on an “as detected and caught” basis though, just as is done now. And in a couple of years, all the existing players will be over 18 automatically with the passing of time. So that problem will fix itself automatically. Just as the phone company has common carrier status while serving both personal and business needs, so can SL.
Benjamin Duranske (avatar 'Benjamin Noble')
Jun 11th, 2007
Just to keep things clear, the Second Life Bar Association (SLBA) is the organization I that started. I believe that I joined the “SL Law Society” at some point, but I do not run it and am not entirely sure it is active.
As promised, I’m ignoring the rest of the comment.
Coincidental Avatar
Jun 11th, 2007
“why do they seem to be on a mission to destroy the company? ”
In the current climate in this business sector, it is almost impossible to be stupid enough to destroy a company.
I think that just following the policies of US authorities and LL is very educational. I make my own analysis of their laziness and errors. Just in case if somebody else wants to buy better solutions from me.
Isn’t being broadly vague paradoxically more honest policy by Lindens than the earlier one? Earlier they had more declared policies which they were either incapable or unwilling to follow.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 11th, 2007
Gosh, Benjamin is throwing a temper-tantrum here, using a really unseemly technique of emotional blackmail, “going on strike” over a truly *non-issue*, and refusing to answer the challenge here. The challenge remains, whether it comes in an envelope marked “Prokofy” or is signed by a Supreme Court justice. Any first-year law-student can see it.
I fail to see how Linden acquired MORE liability and “edited” and “guided” when they *did the opposite* in their statements and actions! They devolved responsibility for content *further* to the land-owning residents, and washed their hands of it, urging people to abuse report stuff they found “broadly offensive”. They themselves didn’t specify what THEY find broadly offensive — they said ‘You go find it’. They claimed extreme violence and obscenity was “always” broadly offensive” and “never allowed” but…they didn’t create any new cases or interpret the law.
I don’t care how cool and credentialed you are, Benjamin, I don’t care how many love pats Urizenus and Hamlet and everybody else is giving you on this “brilliant” idea, you have to face the fact that you have a basic, common-sense challenge to your legal “brilliance” here.
You have to show that Linden Lab seeks to guide and control.
You can’t. There’s no case. There’s not even a THREAT of a case because they said to the residents, “You decide.” Please answer that, and be socially responsible, whatever groups you have founded and whatever purpose your are realizing in SL.
Because they didn’t define, guide, control, makes lists. They told *the community* to do that. So you really need to
factor in that obvious hole in your legal theory here, truly.
Shockwave says, “Simplified – if LL doesn’t change or limit what its users do or create, then they are protected from prosecution by the “Common Carrier” clause of the law. This is the same clause which states that an ISP is not responsible if a user puts a dirty picture on their webpage. If LL starts censoring and restricting what can and can’t be said or done in its service, it loses that protection and is liable for everything inworld.”
And we have absolutely no official legal judgement — yet — that Linden Lab is a common carrier. Linden Lab has not yet removed a single “dirty picture” — although in the past, they’ve responded — IF abuse reported — to some really gross and extreme sexual pictures on group icons in search (but left the same pictures in a house alone).
I’ve talked to many lawyers about the issue of the common carrier status — they differ. Linden Lab is a private company with a private club — it has subscriptions and a TOS. Just because it’s open to anyone with broadband doesn’t mean it isn’t a private club with subscriptions and a TOS — and you know that.
You’re also terribly weakened in your argument, Benjamin, by not facing the music here on the issue of why, if you admit that the First Amendment does NOT pertain here, that we should care about it. Again, as I noted, your boss defines what’s “not safe for work” and you don’t squawk about the First Amendment there; what is it about SL that makes you think you *can* squawk. I know why I think we can squawk; I’d like to hear you articulate it.
I also thinks it’s terribly fun that Benjamin and other RL lawyers were so missing in action when stuff happened like my banning from the blog, booting from town halls, and such. No doubt, these august personages think that’s just “removing trolls” not “chilling speech”. No doubt, like matt Mihaly at Terra Nova, they think, oh, that’s just being an illegitimate troll, why, that’s just being selfish and thinking your little political spats matter, why, that’s not freedom of speech, says matt, that’s just failure to grasp the social structure by which you should be bound (!).
Truly, I’m less than impressed with the stampedes of kewl kids turning up now to crank about cramping of sexual expression that didn’t happen yet — who were cool to chilled on the issue of Meta Linden banging on third-party blogs, or on the suppression of political and economic expression. I’m beginning to get a vision of this Brave New World: freedom of sexual expression to keep the masses and the craven fuck-you hedonist leaders and content-creators happy; brutal suppression of political and economic expression. OK, glad we cleared that up.
Uri, since you’ve been the amen corner on this, I think you really need to parse this yourself: Linden did not guide or edit. They didn’t take action. There is only the legions of fanboyz who might or might not take action — and did we see that they did yet?
The Lindens removed “Lolita” stuff when they developed a policy about non-promotion of “ageplay”. Since the “broadly offensive” edict, I can’t see that they’ve unilaterally removed any content. I’m quite prepared to protest when they do; I don’t see it.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 11th, 2007
Since I was permabanned from Hamlet’s blog pre-emptively as soon as it opened, even before I was able to post anything, and I’m unable to answer there, let me take on Benjamin again here, where he replies to Hamlet’s article:
“One of the problems is that they actually seem to be going well beyond passive enforcement, not just relying on user “tips” but doing some policing themselves. You can see that they’re targeting at least some advertising and actively replacing it with placeholder content by searching classifieds for the phrase “description removed.” Some have argued that this move seems largely targeted at casinos, which is accurate, but it doesn’t really matter. It isn’t *what* they are editing that takes them out from under the CDA’s Section 230(c) safe harbor protection for service providers, it’s the fact that they’re editing user content at all. I’m the first to admit that this is a fairly immature body of law, but it’s not an far-out theory by any stretch of the imagination. Policing content, particularly when they do it on their own, is at least potentially problematic”
This is a very, very important issue. And it’s so important, and I’ve been fighting it along with others for so many months and years here, that sorry, I’m just not leaving it to Benjamin to land on the issue and define it like a ton of bricks merely due to RL credentials.
First, does Benjamin concede that if online gambling is regulated or outlawed, say, in the U.S. that this a crime, and that promoting and advertising such a crime then isn’t “freedom of expression,” but promotion of a crime, so the Lindens have no choice, really, but to remove it. They were advised by their lawyers and by the probe from the Feds that they had to crack down on casinos. 90 or more percent of the “removed content” on these 108 pages are about casinos.
I’ve made a point to TP to many of those remaining “unclear” parcels and have to conclude that they were likely “ageplay anime” of a more extreme kind, or really gross extreme sexual sites — but I can’t prove that as the material is now *removed*, the people aren’t answering about the content, and you can only extrapolate from what remains. In at least one case, it’s truly perplexing to figure out what could be objectionable. It’s also not clear the Lindens went on a spree using SEARCH, but they may have — or they may have abuse reports — but *we cannot know that or speculate about it because they do not tell us* (that’s why I’ve always lobbied for the police blotter to be full, fair, and findable).
So this first example of editing by the Lindens just is not a good example of any editing of sexual expression of the “Moral Majority” type that Benjamin and others are worried about it.
It’s very important to be accurate about this. And if you are fair and accurate, you have to say, no, the Lindens did not remove anything of any type except 1) casinos, which I think Benjamin would concede is legitimate even in his First Amendment rich environment and 2) “ageplay,” which the Lindens made a policy about: no promotion of sexualized ageplay. This may NOT meet First Amendment tests, but then, as Benjamin concedes, this is not an environment in which it can be mandated (and we’re still waiting to hear a VARIETY of legal opinion here on whether or not LL is a “common carrier”).
I *REALLY* cannot see anything but a HUGE STRETCH here on the notion that removing content that *incites the recognizable RL crime of unregulated online gambling* as removing them from the safe harbour concept. The presence of a few Lolitas here in the mix also don’t strike me as enough of a test of their having removed themselves from safe harbour *given the EU laws and the 60 percent non-American membership*. Incitement or promotion to commit a crime isn’t protected speech *in this private club setting*, is it? I don’t think so.
Basically, this concept — “Policing content, particularly when they do it on their own, is at least potentially problematic” — has an awful big hole in it — lack of definition of “common carrier” as applicable to Linden Lab. Lack of clarity as whether a private club can in fact have policies prohibiting the promotion or incitement of crimes.
And, once again — the Lindens are calling on the police informants to be the tipsters, and this removal of casinos and a few Lolitas really isn’t rising to the test of being a true “editing of the world” and enforcement of guidelines.
Try to realize the Lindens are not dilettantes; they have lawyers smarter and better than what most resident lawyers could come up with this because they do this for real, for pay, with real consequences — they don’t just play on an Internet forum with it.
Inigo Chamerberlin
Jun 12th, 2007
‘…when he says Ginsu must be trying to run SL into the ground…’
Sorry guys, Ginsu is no longer Linden Lab’s General Counsel and hasn’t been for some months now – though that can’t absolve him from responsibility for either the TOS or the Bragg affair.
Who is currently responsible for giving Linden Lab poor legal advice at present is not clear, but Ginsu Yoon it definitely isn’t.
I’d suspect a legal ‘team’ rather than an individual though, and considering the way Linden Lab is currently staggering from disaster to crisis in the legal field I suspect that team isn’t particularly keen on publicity…
Maria Leveaux
Aug 27th, 2007
Prok, Re: your First response’
Well said but i have just One Correction to make, the Linden note card does NOT ban age play, and never did, what is Specificly Banned (and this was the reason for the Germans being Banned) was the Open Display and Advertising of Images or activities that Present or simulate Sexual Relations with minors. If people want to Age play in private, or in Club rooms, that is OK, but Advertising the events, or Displaying the related imagery on the Walls of the club is prohibited. The wording of the note Card was pretty unambiguous, but the Climate at the time of it’s release had people Read 2+2 and come up with 7. Those pro age play saw it as a worst case Scenario, those against saw it as a best case, but neither side Really Read it. The Germans were banned NOT because they were Engaging in Age Play, but because they were displaying Pictures that depicted Sexualized images of children.
I think the lawyers you have been speaking to would be reluctant to Take a firm stance on Whether LL is a Club OR a Common Carrier until they have a client who is going to pay then for their Opinion. Lawyers with honest opinions are few. recent court Rulings with regard to LL’s TOS has already started to move SL away from definitions that could Class LL as Either Club, or carrier.
I don’t know if i would Class SL as a Nation YET. We certainly are Far beyond any Classification like Game, Chat Room, or Blog. We have been moving steadily into New territory for the net. As you said If a Nation, Which Nation? Do Japanese, or EU citizens automaticly become Americans, or are we as Citizens In Concert with LL going to have to define a sort of Secondary Nationality? You are of course Well aware of the troubles the Real World Community of nations has in Deciding things like “Is Taiwan a Seperate country, or Part of Mainland China?” Determining Just what SL is, and Who’s jurisdictions hold influence Most is going to, in Future be a real Political and Social Can of Worms.
One thing Is certain, Eventually SOME kind of definition will be needed.
Maria.