To ban or not to ban?

[Shep]

OK firstly lets refresh on the original wording ...

Although there may be all kinds of ancient greek more or less nude statues in the western world in public, what you rezzed will typically be found nowhere (except perhaps more recently in large cities where common norms and morals have been taking a beating, in no small part from the gay community who seem to insist on acting out their lusts in public view - something that is a disgrace and normal people just don't do that whatever their persuasion/afflictions may be)

This was about the fact that there was an erect penis on a poster in CN ... The rest of the post surmises that common norms and morals have been taking a beating in no small part from the gay community etc etc etc ... something that is a disgrace and normal people just don't do that whatever their persuasion/afflictions may be....

WHERE in that quote is there a naive person who did'nt know what they were talking about? I note in other subsequent posts he has used instead of gay community .. gayishness? .. I can only surmise an attempt to lessen the impact of what he was saying..

Many of you know my opinion because I spoke to many of you .... I think he should be banned .. many of you agreed with me ...

Lets do a quick poll ....

[Trebor Warcliffe]

I have copied and pasted my post from yesterday that expresses my thoughts that I will NOT support a ban on josjoha.

josjoha wrote:
Hello,

I am sorry if my tentative thoughts about gayishness have offended anyone.

I have since learned that this (tiring) homo/gay subject is now raging a lot in America. I am not an American or Canadian or part of these anglo-saxon tribes. This subject of gayness or whatever is not discussed in my nation, except perhaps marginally by those so interested. Gay people have all manner of rights here, I think they can even marry. It wouldn't surprise me if gay persecution in the Netherlands is one of the least occuring in all these nations; I certainly never hear of it. I think therefore that the rage exhibited on this forum against me is wholly American, and part of some sort of a struggle that may be going on between polarized sides. Because of the tiniest opinion that I said, which amounted to nothing - but I'm sorry if it offended anyone - you thought perhaps I was on one or the other side of this war in the anglo-saxon tribes about this.

Again I'm sorry if I offended anyone. It is of course nonsense that I am a neo-nazi. In fact I'm in the left, far left, and labor unions, who have traditionally and to this day seen to the fact that gay people are not harrassed. This is your issue, it is not mine, I didn't bring it up, and please leave me alone about it, thank you.

Thank you for reading. Again I apologize if I offended anyone their feelings. I didn't realize you where so touchy on this subject. I promise not to talk or reply on the subject of gayishness in the CDS, a subject that has no interest to me at all anyway.

Having said that, I will not forget what has happened; however this is why CDS is so interesting because it is a model of the real world and attempts at proper reform in the RL nations. Therefore thank you for any harrassements and unfair treatments; these are valuable lessons in human behavior. Maybe then it is time to forget it all anyway, and focus on a brighter future for the CDS. I'm sorry for not bowing down to any bullying, starting to grovel and whimper. I won't do that. But I can say sorry for offending your feelings, and can promise to not talk about this subject in CDS even when an attempt at provocation is made. So with that I'll considder the subject dead and this discussion over for once & for all. If you want to ban me, go ahead, I'll accept the SC ruling on that without appeal and leave. Perhaps that is then the best for all, goodbye in that case.

best regards,
josjoha

I have taken the liberty to edit parts of josjoha's post for the areas that I felt were relevant in my response here. I may be in the minority here and while I was appalled at the offending post I feel that he is aware now of the reason behind his fellow citizens reactions to his post. Like he has pointed out his culture is quite different to many of ours so what we may find offensive or are very sensitive about he obviously wasn't aware of. He has admitted his mistake and apologized to all of us. I have not spoken to josjoha in world, my thoughts come mainly from this post. I'd like to ask my fellow citizens to place this ugly incident in the past and let's move on. One incident does not make an individual. I will not support a ban against josjoha.

Thank you,
Trebor Warcliffe

[Cadence Theas]

I am going to respond from my own disciplinary experience and not from a personal one, because the issue is too complex to reduce it to the personal, and although I originally thought a ban was the answer, I want to present other possible discussions and ways of thinking that might help.

Banning is a powerful statement of abhorrence at the act committed or the thing said. It is, or should be, the last recourse in the governmental toolkit of punitive options to what are seen as irremediable transgressions. But banning has certain problems, first and foremost, it has absolutely no pedagogical value. To the contrary, its only effect is to produce fear and resentment, and that is not a socially healthy environment to live in or to govern from (Veena Das talks about theodicy and the state appropriating the right to make people suffer). Banning, per se, is an indicator of the failure of government and/or society to inculcate the appropriate caring social values that we look for in others. As others have said in other posts, banning diminishes us, as a community, as a social experiment. It is also illogical: fighting repulsive intolerance with the same repulsive mechanism of intolerance.

What is at issue is a small population of CDS members who have publically and privately indicated their dislike of homosexuality in varying degrees of registers, from abusive to simple statements. And they have done so in social settings, some private, and some public as we have seen in the forum. These are personal statements that do show a huge ignorance of the 21st century and the gradual evolution of people and society toward an increasing recognition and acceptance of difference (or the re-recognition based on the forum about ancient sexuality, or the existence of the idea of the third gender in many indigenous communities), and a very parochial attitude towards other people who are not like them.

The point is that these are social transgressions that offend, and we, CDS, have several ways of handling it that do not diminish us, do not speak to yet another—our own—intolerance, have the effect of being pedagogical, and are worthy of this curious democratic experiment we live in. Jos points out in one of his posts that we are using the issue of tolerance towards the LGBT community as a screen to avoid the poster issue—that makes it a political and governmental issue. I suggest that he is using the poster issue to disguise his intolerance of the LGBT community, and that makes it a social issue, and one that can be dealt with at the social level.

Indigenous peoples (not all, but many groups) did not ban people who transgressed, they muted them. The people continued to live in the boundaries of the community, but were not spoken to, were not invited to ritual and sacred ceremonies, were not welcome in peoples houses, etc. In many cases, after a long period of social invisibility, the people would leave. This is another form of intolerance, but not as brutal. Some may opt for this course of action.

If we were to move to a more pedagogical approach, then I think we can talk about social and academic events, the massive display of symbols of diversity, public (not IM) refutation of intolerance toward the LGBT community or any other minority community.

I post this to show that this is not a black and white issue, it is complex one that requires a lot of thought and soul searching on all of our parts, and not just the ones who showed such intolerance of the LGBT community. Who are we? What do we want to be? What do our actions say about us?

I haven't decided yet what way to vote, I am still working through these issues in my mind.

Thank you.

[Lam Erin]

I agree with Trebor for the reasons explained by him.

I would consider ban only as a last resort penalty when all other methods to discipline an offender have been exhausted, which in my view is not the case here. I dont know if Jos had been formally accused of the same "crime" in the past but if he didnt it seems to me to be too harsh to proceed to banning him.

Issuing a formal warning could be sufficient at this stage I believe and this is my suggestion. In this suggestion I have taken into consideration also that his act was not unprovoked and that he has been a CDS citizens for a long time.

Also I would like to see which CDS laws have been violated in this case. This is important not only for the current case but also for the future as the Jos's case creates a precedent which could be used to settle future cases. If such law does not exist yet or if it is vague leaving room for various interpretations (which I suspect may be the case) then CDS needs to clarify its position first by issuing a formal interpretative statement.

This is important because after reading various posts on this case, it is not clear to me where is the borderline between an acceptable criticism of the gay community and an unacceptable one. Are citizens allowed to criticise the gay community or not? And if yes when this is acceptable? The issue goes beyond the gay or transgender issue to other sensitive issues like views on immigration, jews, minority groups etc.

Unless there is such line and unless this has been clearly communicated to the citizens I hardly see how a ban can be justified in this case.I am new citizen and as such I may be still lacking access to all the necessary information but i have to admit that so far I have absolutely no idea about the formal CDS approach to the above issues. I have read references to "tolerance" and "freedom of expression" but I havent seen anywhere an attempt to define these terms.

If I say for example that gays are moral disgrace is this manifestation of my freedom of expression (and therefore fine as a comment) or does it mean I am "intolerant" and breaking CDS laws?

The reference to LL TOS in my view should be careful because many of these TOS especially on this kind of issue are vague and open to various interpretations. In my view if a strict interpretation of LL TOS were to be adopted, more than half of current SL residents would have to be banned as the majority, in my view, has violated in one or another way these TOS. So we should leave the TOS outside of this to the Lindens and focus on what we as community want on those important but also sensitive issues.

These additional considerations reinforce further my conviction that ban is too harsh a punishment in this case.

[Lam Erin]

To show how problematic is any reference to ToS i will copy Vic's post from another thread which refers to section 6.1 of the LL ToS and which according to Vic's interpretation proves that Jos broke these ToS. MY answer is "I dont know" because many of the words used in section, even those highlighted by Vic are open to various interpretations.

Enough with this "Free Speech" tripe....

From the Terms of Service of Linden Lab...

6.1 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

You agree that you will not:

(i) Post, display, or transmit Content that violates any law or the rights of any third party, including without limitation Intellectual Property Rights. We reserve the right to request at any time proof of permissions in a form acceptable to us. Failure to provide such proof may lead to, among other things, removal of such Content from the Service;

(ii) Impersonate any person or entity without their consent, or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation, or if you are an adult, impersonate a minor for the purpose of interacting with a minor using the Service;

(iii) Stalk, harass, or engage in any sexual, suggestive, lewd, lascivious, or otherwise inappropriate conduct with minors on the Service;

(iv) Post, display, or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

(v) Post, display, or transmit Content that is obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; or

(vi) Post, display or transmit any Content or conduct or host any activity that is sexually explicit, or intensely violent.
Any violation by you of the terms of this Section may result in immediate termination of your Accounts without any refund or other compensation.

...bold is mine, Jos broke the ToS... end of...

.

To show how difficult the interpretation is I will use as an example subsection (v) of the ToS, which refers to "obscene" or "otherwise objectionable" content. This could easily cover the poster if interpreted "appropriately" not because it promotes homosexuality or transgender rights but because it does so by showing men's genitals. Such a poster I am sure would have been deemed "objectionable" and would have been banned in many countries by local laws even the most liberal ones.There are other ways to promote homosexuality and transgender rights than in this way..Some have referred to museums and art but the poster that provoked this row was not about art...You dont see such posters on the streets or in open public places but only in certain usually confined areas and only after the authorities had approved it...

Further I am copying from the the LL definition of intolerance:

Intolerance
Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as a whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.

I highlight three words: "belittle", "religion", "sexual orientation", which are protected (belittling was condemned) and against which derogatory or demeaning language is "never allowed in second life".

Belittling someone covers broad types of behaviours and it is a daily phenomenon in second life. Calling someone "bastard", "whore", "son of the bitch" could be easily deemed "belittling" and therefore breach of the ToS. Religion and sexual orientation are protected but there are many situations where in order to protect sexual orientation you may be offending religion and vice versa. Homosexuality according to some religions or sects is something immoral and abnormal, so promoting homosexuality offends them and could breach the ToS. On the other hand if the approach of these religions or sects are adopted then there is violation of the right to sexual orientation which is also protected by LL.

There are many other terms used in the ToS and other documents which are open to various interpretations.

My advice is to be very careful when we seek to implement them. MY advice is also to be even more careful when we are punishing people on the basis of views expressed on sensitive issues like this which traditionally attracts strong arguments by both sides as the community will appear to be taking sides on an issue which is still subject to debate in most states and therefore not settled.

To resolve this sensitive issue by suggestion is to follow LL's suggestion:

Exercise common sense and your best judgment in your interactions with others (e.g. when you submit any personal or other information) and in all of your other online activities.

CDS and the parties involved in the dispute should exercise common sense, which in my view means to try to resolve the issue without resorting to the use of extreme punishments, because the relevant "laws" are too vague and impractical
and also because the debate on the sensitive issue of homosexuality is still going on and it is not settled (in a practical way) in many countries. The community by punishing the one side of the debate will be seemed to be taking parts in this debate with specific view which I am not sure has ever been properly debated in CDS. CDS could also be accused or intolerance on grounds explained above.

Finally I am copying from the LL the punishment options and their order of selection according to LL ToS. I think CDS should adopt a similar approach.

Warning, Suspension, Banishment
Second Life is a complex society, and it can take some time for new Residents to gain a full understanding of local customs and mores. Generally, violations of the Community Standards will first result in a Warning, followed by Suspension and eventual Banishment from Second Life.

[Callipygian]

...
The reference to LL TOS in my view should be careful because many of these TOS especially on this kind of issue are vague and open to various interpretations. In my view if a strict interpretation of LL TOS were to be adopted, more than half of current SL residents would have to be banned as the majority, in my view, has violated in one or another way these TOS. So we should leave the TOS outside of this to the Lindens and focus on what we as community want on those important but also sensitive issues.

...

I won't have time until later to comment on a number of posts in various threads, but just need to point something out here.

ToS contravention has been brought up as cause for hearings and punishments a lot recently, including iirc by jos himself regarding perceived griefing. This is based on the following:

CDS Constitution
PREAMBLE
All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception.

This is stated first and foremost in the CDS Constitution, and as a result there isn''t the option to just 'leave ToS outside of this' or for people to pick and choose when it is applied (usually when it benefits their own argument of course .

If the will of the people is to remove LL ToS from the enforceable standards of behaviour in CDS, that will require a Constitutional amendment passed with a 2/3 majority in the RA. This will not remove ToS as a standard of behaviour, but will mean that contraventions of them are only a matter for LL to address. This would also have implications for the Forums, since at this time LL ToS are applied to them, even though LL itself has declined in the past to act on infractions that occur on websites that are not owned or controlled by LL.

To be clear, I am not suggesting this is, or is not, a desirable path to take - I am just pointing out the restrictions on ignoring ToS that currently exist.

Callipygian

[Lam Erin]

Ι am not suggesting to remove LL ToS from our constitution..I am suggesting that in order to invoke and implement something we need to know what it means. De we know? This is what I am asking.

Can someone for example tell us which standards of behaviour are acceptable (or unacceptable if you want) according to the ToS, the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Contitutions and declarations contain general, abstract principles which are hard to implement directly without the existence of implementing regulations or laws, which give meaningful interpretation and implementation to the above principles.

The Declaration of Human Rights in many states can not be directly invoked because it is addressed to nations not to citizens...It is the implementing domestic legislation that is used and enforced in Court.

In our case CDS should have in place a document which clearly specifies the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and provides for relevant and specific sanctions for violators.

So whilst we have to abide by LL ToS and the other documents above, we also need to do so in a meaningful and practical way.

By arguing the above I dont want to take position in the substance of the Jos case. My concern is the CDS laws and processes and the way they are applied because these concern all citizens. My concerns is also about creating a precedent here which could be used to settle future disputes.

And this precedent must be based on solid foundations.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which CDS is subscribed states clearly

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

All this should be highlighted but I isolated this part....My genuine question is: what is the PENAL OFFENCE of which Jos is accused and for which ban is requested as a penalty...Do we have a system of penalties? If we dont
then LL ToS tell as what to do:

First Warning, second suspension, third banishment...As LL ToS is superior law to which we have also subscribed we need to implement it as LL ToS requires.
By seeking a ban we are ignoring the first two stages in the penalty system and we jump to the final one...

Is there any reason for this? These questions have to be answered because as I said they create precedent.....

Citizens could be facing ban in the future on the basis of unproved claims, without roper trial and without even recourse to any specific CDS law. This should be avoided in a democracy..

[Ceasar Xigalia]

To answer Shep's request for a poll

I do not agree to a ban for Josjoha

Briefly I agree with Bromo, Lam and Trebor's post on this and even with Pat (quote below).

'I see this as an opportunity to educate the ignorant rather than drive out people who hold such stupid views.' - Pat

[josjoha]

I have read references to "tolerance" and "freedom of expression" but I havent seen anywhere an attempt to define these terms

The topic of freedom of speech was discussed recently in an in-world event. Since I can't post other people their chat, perhaps you can infer what they've said. I guess basically I was making some arguments that freedom of speech it's limitations is especially in the *way* a message is delivered, and not not *what* message is delivered, with the exception of (death-) threats (which also stifle political life). Hence you can offer any opinion, truthfull or false as well (because there is nobody qualified to oppress someone their *opinion*). This can be in regular communications. But it can not necessarily be with megaphones, with huge banners, to the degree that other people their rights are excessively reduced. Here some kind of a balance is necessary. Is there a right to protest in the streets ? I think so. But is there a right to *block* the street (with a protest) ? Obviously not. However as nations usually do this that are not tyrannical, they solve it by sometimes giving a permit to allow a street protest to take place, thus blocking the streets. Here we see that the public will comes into play, through the democratic Government, through the permit.

Hence you could argue that there is a spectrum. On the one side you have the actual content of an opinion, held in the mind. The next step is whispering this into another person their ear. Then it goes from talking, to flyering, to organizing, to public posters, street marches and all the way into extreme sound use, blasting people their residences with everything you got, to the point of even public burnings and riots and murder at the far other end to all who disagree. At some point this is legal, and at some point it becomes unwise to let it be legal. Although I could offer a personal stab at what might be wise, I'd prefer to let it sit here as a problem that can be discussed.

If it is of interest, since my chatlog is apparently of such extreme interest, here are some parts that might touch upon something that is worthwhile to discuss (instead of some hysterical counter-accusations that I will leave further unanswered; if these people wish to disgrace themselves in public the way they are doing right now, I'll let them have it at --- call it freedom of speech ... so long as it stays speech).

[2013/11/25 13:14] josjoha: i think that free speech needs to be taken quite wide, because governments have the tendency to become tyrannical otherwise
[2013/11/25 13:14] josjoha: so that means that even slander, especially wrt political subjects, is protected
[2013/11/25 13:14] josjoha: i'm thinking that you should be able to say that, yes
[2013/11/25 13:16] josjoha: let's keep to the topic
[2013/11/25 13:16] josjoha: so i'd argue, that this argument could become illegal *as such* if either side can not make accusations that may not be truthful
[2013/11/25 13:17] josjoha: and "what is truthful" is always just about impossible to agree about - or it often is, but at least we can talk about it

[2013/11/25 13:36] josjoha: what about how far you can go with expressing your views using devices such as megaphones, or posters
[2013/11/25 13:36] josjoha: is it ok to megaphone the British parliament, some have done this
[2013/11/25 13:37] josjoha: ok, but you could edge that further ... is it ok to megaphone someone their house through their letterbox...

[Vic contrasted private versus public, saying that British parliament is public land. The inference seems to be that according to Vic you can post on public land, but not private land. Notice how Gaume's posters where right on top of people their properties, for all intends and purposes and how it looked, they where on other people their homes. Does the "street" start right at the edge of a window, so that you can glue your posters on top of someone else's their window, claiming that to be public space ? ... interesting problem I guess ... ]

[Lillith said posting in public was not ok. Notice the concequences of this opinion to the original offenses that all these posts come from, the rezzing spree by Gaume.]

josjoha: Lillith, but also not a small one on a random wall ?

[Lillith strongly opposed rezzing anything on public land. Notice how the orgininal offender rezzed posters on public land, but worse it was also right on other people their properties.]

josjoha: i agree Vic ... that's a good point to remember, public vs private
josjoha: i even think though that a parliament has a right to debate & assemble
josjoha: so if they are disrupted by megaphones, i'd not think that is freedom of speech

josjoha: but what if the megaphones disrupt a parliamentary meeting ... the delegates there also have their freedom of speech right
josjoha: Lillith, you can mute a megaphone ? you'd need to make that person stop in his expression of speech
josjoha: Gaius, you put posters on other people their homes, that's an interesting example of freedom of speech; any opinions by anyone on that ?
josjoha: that's an interetsing example of freedom of speech
(...)
josjoha: a protection of people against certain speech, can also become discrimination
(...)
josjoha: of course not, so there are limits on freedom of speech
josjoha: i'd say this limit is mostly on the means by which the message is delivered, and not on the message itself
josjoha: right ...
josjoha: you could also ask what is the purpose of expression of opinion in a good way: it's to organize politically
josjoha: then you could say: hwat is needed at minimum to organize politically, and say all that should at least be freedom
josjoha: so, i'd say that giving out phamphlets is a bare minimum, talking at normal tone and stop when ppl don't want to hear it, has to be protected - regardless of the opinion, however offensive it is; except if it contains threats like death-threats
josjoha: i'm not sure posters are absolutely needed to organize politically, although it can help a lot
josjoha: yelling also leads to slogans and superficiality, who can have a debate by yelling
josjoha: i wonder though if you sometimes "need to yell" though

Some interesting quotes about freedom of speech & dictatorship, here one from someone in CDS:

If only life were that simple Vic! The thing is, that I and MANY of us AGREE with you - still we must work within the system and not behave like autocrats. It's very simple to handle hateful idiots in SL when you are a dictator, which almost all of SL is; be they run by benign dictators or tyrants. The CDS is different in that it is run democratically. We all know that it's not easy and it's not perfect.

Does this sound familiar, Rosie (you called me "hateful idiot" hence I have muted you in-world, which is another interesting way to deal with offensive speech ?):

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... [Bush laughs out loud, audience laughs out loud] ...just so long as I'm the dictator [more laughter].

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

If only they where the dictator ... then life would be easier ... for them. It is the job of the CDS citizenry to make sure that does not happen. Good luck in the fight, may Justice prevail.

regards,
josjoha

[Lam Erin]

Jos,
If you ask the current 81 citizens (or so) about what freedom of expression (or intolerance, or harassment etc) means you will receive 81 different definitions. These issues are not settled and i doubt they will ever be.

However each country has adopted in their laws some version of freedom of expression which they think is closer to local political, social and cultural traditions and which they think they can implement. This is important in order to ensure that freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights are protected in a practical and therefore meaningful way/

In SL the ToS on this are vague. I dont blame them..LL ToS can be equivalent to a national constitutions: they contain general, guiding principles, but not specific definitions or rules (except in some cases where LL think they need to send a strong message). I think therefore that there is a task for the local community to decide on how they define freedom or expression and other important human rights issues.

Many groups and communities in sl have adopted codes of conduct and other related documents which clearly explain where these groups and communities stand on important issues like this. These documents are necessary in order to ensure that citizens are aware of their rights and responsibilities within the community or group. Also these documents list the available sanctions to punish the violators of these rules.

The underlying purpose is to ensure certainty, predictability and transparency in the relationships between the community and their citizens and also in the relationship between the citizens.

I am surprised that CDS has not adopted a similar approach after almost 10 years of existence.

So if a new citizen or someone considering joining cds wants to know in a meaningful and practical way what the Community's acceptable standards of behaviour are, there is no way he can receive a straightforward answer...He is referred to the constitution, the LL ToS, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc which even lawyers have sometimes found hard to comprehend.

My personal suggestion and proposal to CDS is to create a document specifying the standards of acceptable behaviour to which CDS subscribe. This document as a far reaching one, should be drafted in consultation with all citizens and be subject to a referendum. it could then be placed as an addendum to the constitution.

Without such a document, I am afraid that CDS lacks moral and legal authority to try and even ban citizens. The reason is that the CDS constitution, whilst allowing for banning citizens, requires banishment "according to the law". The obvious question arising here is which is that law. I doubt that law can be the Universal convention of Human Rights. It can be invoked as a guiding principle but not as a mechanism imposing sanctions because the Declaration itself does not provide for sanctions let alone that it is addressed to states. LL ToS if violated should be dealt with by LL not by us. A CDS court was not given authority by LL to try citizens on the basis of violations of LL ToS. LL is clear on their website that all violations of ToS should be reported to them.

The only authority therefore left to a CDS court is based on it own constitution and laws, which at the moment do not contain any specific rules on basic human rights issues or any penal code.

In simple words CDS does not have a system of justice, adherence to the rule of law is very limited or non-existent, and conflict resolution or ensuring the protection of the community or its citizens from violations depends only on the personal discretion of some cds official who has access to the ban button, with all the risks tat this entails.

This vacuum in my view needs to be filled as soon as possible with the adoption of appropriate legislation..

[Rosie Gray]

Some interesting quotes about freedom of speech & dictatorship, here one from someone in CDS:

If only life were that simple Vic! The thing is, that I and MANY of us AGREE with you - still we must work within the system and not behave like autocrats. It's very simple to handle hateful idiots in SL when you are a dictator, which almost all of SL is; be they run by benign dictators or tyrants. The CDS is different in that it is run democratically. We all know that it's not easy and it's not perfect.

Does this sound familiar, Rosie (you called me "hateful idiot" hence I have muted you in-world, which is another interesting way to deal with offensive speech ?):

Did you not understand that I was answering Vic's call to immediate action to ban you with a response that we are a democracy and must proceed within the law - that we are NOT dictators.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I don't think Jos should be banned for what he said. He expressed some revolting homophobic views and has been rightly condemned for it. Several people, myself included, have explained why these views are so offensive and so dangerous and he has apologised.

Why would we ban someone in these circumstances? He said some hateful and ignorant things but.. he didn't call for people to be physically attacked or murdered. I think we need to get a sense of perspective here. Let's not start banning people because we disagree with their political opinions; that way madness lies!

Neither do I think that Guillaume should be banned either (though I understand he is no longer a citizen in any case - could someone sell him a plot please?) And Jos's vendetta against Guillaume was ugly and his call to ban him over the top and histrionic. Still, not enough in either case to justify such a sanction.

Remember, the last person we banned was Ulrika Zugzwang - one of our founders who fell out with the community and then went on a rampage deleting buildings (including peoples' homes) in the great U-quake of whenever it was. That sets the bar pretty high.

[Rosie Gray]

I don't think Jos should be banned for what he said. He expressed some revolting homophobic views and has been rightly condemned for it. Several people, myself included, have explained why these views are so offensive and so dangerous and he has apologised.

Why would we ban someone in these circumstances? He said some hateful and ignorant things but.. he didn't call for people to be physically attacked or murdered. I think we need to get a sense of perspective here. Let's not start banning people because we disagree with their political opinions; that way madness lies!

Neither do I think that Guillaume should be banned either (though I understand he is no longer a citizen in any case - could someone sell him a plot please?) And Jos's vendetta against Guillaume was ugly and his call to ban him over the top and histrionic. Still, not enough in either case to justify such a sanction.

Remember, the last person we banned was Ulrika Zugzwang - one of our founders who fell out with the community and then went on a rampage deleting buildings (including peoples' homes) in the great U-quake of whenever it was. That sets the bar pretty high.

I completely agree with Pat here. Oh and Guillaume has purchased another lot, so he is a citizen again you'll be happy to know (at least for the next 10 minutes).

[Victor1]

So what the government has basically said is its ok to blurt out homophobic rants as long as the person feels sorry afterwards...

Lia has informed Linden Lab to remove the Tuscan Order from the upcoming update to the Destination Guide on Friday 6th since it was earmarked to be added, but under my name as the owner, as I said to several of the "higher ups" in CDS... almost all of my buildings end up in the Destination Guide. Due to the change of ownership it has to be relisted for the Destination Guide under Lia's name since she owns the building now, but shes informed me via IM that she doesn't intend to, not after she read this thread.

Congrats on collectively deflating a ton of free advertising.

I'm walking away from this whole debacle now, i'll keep paying tier for as long as Lia wants to stay at that plot.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Vic,
We will miss you in CDS. It is a wonderful place, you have written so many not good things about us on our forums since you have been here. Really, it seems you hardly gave us a chance. Such a rush to judgment and such a loud voice about what is bad about CDS on our forums when you just got here !

We are in our ninth year now, headed for a tenth anniversary with lots of wonderful history. We are very different from other sims as we are a democracy and I guess that takes some getting used to. It makes us vulnerable also.

I hope L likes it and stays, but if she doesn't, we have a waiting list of people trying to get into CDS now. I think the fact that we are thriving says a lot about us. And I think on balance we are a great place to live !

p.s.
Vic,
Thank you for the day you took me to see the sales office at New Babbage where you work, I appreciate the time you took to show me around. Are there still almost 20 parcels for sale there ?

Cleo