“that is everyone’s law, people.”

No, repression of Chinese dissidents isn’t “everyone’s law.” This constant reference of “the need to abide by Chinese law” completely overlooks the fact that it is not just law; it is the kind of law that instantly gets changed the minute you have democratic and accountable governments, and needs constant support as our own country’s politics show — you don’t leave this stuff to take care of itself.

And the idea that if you resist Chinese oppression, you only invite more impression, therefore, “never resist Chinese oppression” is a Satanic argument if I ever heard one. It’s not one that any just society accepts as an argument.

What I’d like to know is: where is the Second Life Bar Association? Here their board member is out here stumping on behalf of the oppressive Chinese government, urging Linden Lab to comply with their unjust requests, should they come in.

Does this represent the SLBA’s position? I’ll bet it represents the views of the current president, Benjamin Duranske, but he’s cunningly silent on this point at the moment.

The idea that refusing to turn over a Chinese dissidents personal information is somehow an unlawful act, when it is a legitimate and lawful response to an illegitimate law, is one of those bad ideas that somehow Holyoke absorbed in her immoral law school setting — or imbibed from the Internet, or out of her ass, or who the hell knows. But it’s completely unsupportable as a premise. It mainly shows complete ignorance of the dimensions of the debate on this issue as it evolved with Google and Yahoo.

There is absolutely no reason in hell an American company should be turning over the names of its customers to a foreign power. They are under no requirement to do so — what, an American lawyer is going to file a subpoena against them on behalf of the Chinese government to turn over information about a person who hasn’t committed a crime in any American formal sense, or any international human rights sense?! Hello?! Of course not.

So…the Chinese are then going to play hardball and cut off all service, and harm big operations like ACS? Well, let them? They may come to that point, or they may say, on their side, hey, this isn’t worth the loss of business, the bad press, and the general nuisance, let it go.

And, as Mao himself said, water wears away the stone. You hold the line on “little things” like one Chinese man’s personal information, and you keep going, and it wears down.

Oh, you say, the Lindens won’t be good businessmen by letting the Chinese disrupt the entire service? Well, by that time, the Lindens, given what Philip said about this in the BBC interview, are likely to dodge and stall until they can say, “Anshe, and other Chinese providers, here’s a license to use our server code, run things how you like, YOU take over the Chinese dissident issue, we’re done.”

They certainly don’t gain any influence and market strength by competing with HiPhive or whatever it’s called by joining in the chorus to drown Chinese dissent. In fact, they could position themselves MORE favourable by doing nothing, saying nothing, not cooperating, passively resisting, and just providing more and more providers like Anshe with server code. As with Russia, when there are lots more providers, it becomes harder for the government to take over everything, though of course they manage to interfere mightily.

When I first wrote my response on Thursday, I anticipated a response along the lines of “would you turn over Anne Frank to the Nazis?” Due to Godwin’s law, I’ll leave that one alone and use a different example.

If I lived in the Northern US in the 1850′s and a runaway slave asked for help via the Underground Railroad, I believe I would help that slave escape to Canada. What I wouldn’t do is release a press notice stating that I was helping runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad.

And that’s what Prokofy is asking for. As things stand now, the Lindens could deny knowledge of dissident activity and show themselves to be law-abiding, and that is everyone’s law, people. If Prokofy’s end result occurs, then China would be suspicious of Second Life and investigate it more intently for dissident activity.

Additionally, the Lindens, and other companies, could do more to lobby the Chinese government to change its policies. But those would be lawful attempts in changing the law, not predetermined open definance of a country’s laws.

The idea that you offset consumer habits and push consumer boycotts which are nearly impossible to get going for China and have marginal effect even when practiced, with a sharp and real and personal moral decision involving YOUR decision to turn in a Chinese dissident or not — SO emblematic of the sliding immorality in which you are awash.

It doesn’t matter if I buy Chinese sneakers or don’t buy Chinese sneakers; that is, I can make or not make this moral choice. That does absolutely nothing to offset the moral imperative for Linden Lab or any company REALLY in a position to set the moral and legal tone.

Who says these Chinese laws are “legal”? That’s the horror — that this particularly salient point, that apparently escaped you in law school (not surprisingly) is one that you simply fail to grasp or respond to. Unjust “laws” aren’t law; they are misuing law to commit crimes.

This blanket statement about “having to abide by Chinese laws if you do business in China” is a total red herring as it belies the fact that a) the oppressive practices against dissenters aren’t always codified in law that you could “abide by” or “not abide by” b) they are injust and arbitrarily applied anyway; c) there are different factions within the regime itself, of liberals and conservatives, who differ themselves about what the “law” is.

It’s like saying, “Oh, Bush sanctioned torture in Guantanamo. That’s the law! If you’re going to do business in America, you have to accept that. And if you’re in an American game on American servers, why, you better not criticize that”. That would be absurd — and unnecessary. These issues came to light and are challenged precisely because of robust dissent and litigation — which you as a lawyer should be grasping and supporting instead of issuing pious corporativist nostrums about “doing business”. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

There is a school of thought that ignoring human rights issues, or making them subservient to economic and business concerns, will “help” China, that it will “eventually evolve”. But…this idea hasn’t worked for 20 or more years. It shows no sign of working. Countries don’t liberalize by having hacks like Holyoke prop up repressive regimes; they liberalize by people outside these countries supporting those brave enough to challenge them.

Every company doing business in or with China has to comply with Chinese laws. It’s not optional, unless that company wants to be sanctioned by the Chinese government and potentially lose access to one of the world’s largest markets. Singling out LL for your political crusade, in the context of a US economy that is rather thoroughly dependent on China, is misguided and pathetic — surpassed on by your use of the issue as s stalking horse to spout your typical scorn, ridicule and hatred of lawyers.

You want to help dissidents in China? Here’s what you do, Prok. Don’t buy anything that is made in China. No cellphones, no computers (including parts), no clothing, no reading material — nothing. Then you will be putting your money quite literally where your verbose mouth is. But haranguing LL on an internet forum about the issue of Chinese dissidents when the very computer you are typing on likely has Chinese parts is hypocritical and self-defeating.

Fake blanket hysterical arguments like “oh, don’t let in any Chinese at all for fear of having to betray even one” is a total straw argument, and completely unnecessary.

The Lindens already let in all kinds of Chinese. Robin already implied they would be unlikely to turn over information unnecessarily, without a legitimate subpoena.

There’s nothing legitimate about any Chinese call to harass a dissident. Comparing it with ageplay prosecution is indeed not only insulting, but nauseating. It shows us the absolute moral nadir of the current crop of law students, that’s for sure.

No one asks the Lindens to fight for Chinese dissidents; they ask them not to collaborate maliciously with their persecutors. There’s never any reason to do that. They can always simply not collaborate, not comply, not submit. There’s always passive resistance, even if you can’t muster something more. If the Great Fire Wall is then thrown up, then it will be one of the many things that Chinese citizens will fight to have removed — as they and their supporters do with a Facebook group and many other movements. The whole world is watching; a good number of people will resist if the Lindens pulled something like that.

A key difficulty in overthrowing repressive governments is getting their supporters like Jessica Holyoke out of the way, and getting them to stop doing damage in advance on behalf of the powers that they cravenly serve. And the best way to do that is simply to say: your name is taken, you are noted: see you on the other side of the revolution.

Nobody violated shit. The Chinese behaves just like the American and criticizes his government. It’s that government that is intolerant. The Lindens are not required to do a goddamn thing.

I was going to write a fairly long response in response to your 4 page answer. Then I realized that any articulate, accurate response would be pointless to you because you’re always right, no matter what. So lets make this short and on topic.

If Linden labs doesn’t want to be in a position to turn over dissident information to China, then don’t let in residents from China. If the situation that you are describing, Chinese resident speaks against his government in SL, and the Lindens are requested to turn over the information, then what you are asking is not “Support Chinese Free Speech Rights” you are asking them to “Fight for Chinese Free Speech Rights” by placing the Lindens at risk. (And honestly, the same turn over situation exists for a resident of a Muslim country that converts to Christianity in SL.)

Therefore, you are asking a barely profitable, poorly operated company to come up with both the money and the will to fight the Chinese government in order to protect someone who violated the Linden’s stated policies.