I'm glad the CDS is still having these complex ethical questions Somehow back when we started I would think that, one day in the future, when everybody in the world would be 'living and working' in virtual worlds, all the debates we had here would be useful to set policy in the 'real world'. The funny bit is that we're now in the future and we're still not all immersed in virtual worlds... but we certainly continue to have more and more issues to deal with!
If I understand the gist of this thread, there are two separate issues being addressed at the same time... one, the right to anyone to self-express themselves as a child avatar (or a robot, or an animal, or whatever...) in the sense of presentation (i.e. avatar shape, clothing, accessories, etc.) but not necessarily (at their discretion) in the sense of role. I've been reading a bit about some complex issues in identity politics, something we Europeans find fascinating because we really don't have it (or at least not in the way it is understood in the US), so I'm clearly not qualified to give any sort of 'expert' opinion on the subject, but one thing is relatively clear for me: presentation ought not to be 'censored' or limited in any way, not even inside the RA, because that's really interfering with freedom of expression. Of course — the LL ToS is much more restrictive in some regards, namely regarding naked avatars and so forth, but there is no issue with anyone presenting themselves as a child avatar.
This should be something that I believe that Han would be happy with: to recognise the right for anyone to freely present themselves as a child avatar (or rather, to present themselves as anything not strictly forbidden by the LL ToS). In theory, this ought to be a clear-cut interpretation of our Constitution; but on the other hand, it does not explicitly name child avatars as an 'acceptable' form of presentation — this wasn't an issue back then because technically child avatars didn't yet exist!
The other issue is the, uh, 'seriousness' of someone not only presenting themselves in a child avatar but also playing the role of one while attending to some official (i.e. somehow Government-related) duty. Again, freedom of expression should extend to the role, not merely to the presentation, simply because that's how it is interpreted by most modern, contemporary democracies (at least in the West!). There is, however, a catch, and let me give you a simple example (not my own, mind you, just things I read here and there on the Internet).
In truth, we all play different 'roles' in the course of a day. The mother who rises in the morning and takes care of her children before going out to work; she switches from the 'mother role' to the 'business person role' as she arrives at her job. Later, she might go out with some friends and has a different 'role' for them; finally, returning home, she becomes the 'wife' for her husband, but also the 'mother' for her children. So, along the day, according to circumstances, people change their 'roles' all the time. And it would be very weird indeed to play the 'mother' role when talking to customers; or being the business person when talking to her husband. We simply have codified different appropriate behaviours according to where we are, what we're doing, and who we're with; and we don't 'confuse' those roles merely for the sake of 'freedom of expression', i.e. there are norms and conventions describing the appropriate behaviour in each case.
Now, we can see the work at the RA (as an example!) as having its own formality and rules; an accepted behaviour for sitting in the relatively solemn session for the purpose of legislating. In the CDS, however, we have all sorts of events with all kinds of people; and obviously we have our own way of talking or behaving (sometimes even dressing!) when being together with fellow citizens and guests. We might be more formal when attending an event at the Museum or in the Kirche; and we might 'loosen up' during, say, Oktoberfest (when we even change our usual style of clothing to keep in the spirit of that event!) or when joining a party at the beach. Such rules are not codified, nor even very strict (nobody gets kicked out of the Marktplatz if they aren't wearing dirnlds or lederhosen), but nevertheless they are part of our routines, our habits, our non-written social conventions. And we sort of stick to them; someone misbehaving when the RA is in session — during which everything gets transcribed! — might be asked to leave. What exactly consists 'misbehaving' in that context is of course at the discretion of the RA members, especially the LRA.
Conventions, courtesy, cordiality, accepted norms of behaviour — all of these are not written but it is assumed that for the sake of a healthy intercourse with fellow citizens, one has to 'behave' according to what society expects of us. Personally, the way Second Life mimics real life in that context is a fascinating study of sociology and anthropology — ironically enough, in spite of using 'avatar names' and the ability to present ourselves in any possible way (even surreal ones that are impossible in RL), we strangely adhere to social norms much more easily in SL than, say, on Facebook (just to give a worst-case example!), even though we use Facebook with our real names and profile pictures (at least that's what most people do). Why exactly this is the case in SL is rather complex, and if I start writing my thoughts on that subject, I'll be writing this post until December The point here is that this is how SL 'works': it mimics, or replicates, social behaviour that we also see happening iRL (the idea that we have iRL different roles for each occasion), although, of course, there is much more freedom of expression (and of adopting different roles) in SL. In other words: while conceptually we could behave in Second Life in completely different ways than iRL — in the sense of adopting totally different conventions — there seems to be a threshold of, uh, 'familiarity' which we stretch and bend but not break. Thus, even horse avatars may role-play being horses all the time, but they nevertheless are cordial and respectful of non-horses when interacting with them. While there are many counter-examples in SL where the 'conventions of reality' have been completely broken — and everything enters the realm of surreality! — the truth is that SL is much closer to RL than we care to admit. It is much more an environment of 'fantasy' — an extension of reality with 'magical' properties, such as the ability to fly or to have a tiny avatar — than one of 'surreality' (where no familiar rules are present). This, of course, might be much more true of communities like the CDS than others; as so many of you have said, we're not a role-playing community, even if so many 'outsiders' often think that we're 'role-playing' democracy, when in fact 'democracy' is a tool we use for managing the community. It's nothing more than a 'tool' but just look at how far we got with it — how many communities are still alive and well in SL after 14 years?
Anyway... I digress, as always... back to the point: for me personally, I don't see any problem in investing the RA sessions (or any Government-related official duty) with a certain degree of solemnity and formality, not because we're 'role-playing' democracy while legislating, but rather because we recognise the importance that the RA represents for the CDS, as the leitmotif that got this community through the years. So, sure, the RA has a 'solemn' importance in the CDS and the community, not merely because we say so, but rather because it's thanks to the CDS institutions that we're still around and still having these complex ethical debates.
It is therefore appropriate, IMHO, to show some special respect to what goes on Government-wise, not merely because we're saying so, or because we're putting some strict rules here and there, but actually for something even more important than that. In RL, we show respect to those things (even immaterial ones!) which are important for us. That's why we don't do raves and parties on graveyards (well, except for some radical cases... lol) or do heavy metal concerts inside Catholic Churches; but neither do we any of these things in the real-world parliaments, congresses, and so forth. Such behaviour is not necessarily always codified in law (I never visited a graveyard which had a sign at the entrance forbidding parties!) but it is part of our unwritten but codified behaviour — we adopt a specific role, with appropriate behaviour (sometimes extended to one's clothing), towards those things that matter most to us and which we deem worthy of respect.
Now, I don't really want to say that the RA should be 'worshipped' as something supernatural, in the religious sense of the word; in fact, we have far more examples of reverence and respect towards secular things (think about the rules of conduct in museums and libraries, just to give two further examples). I just wanted to point out why the sessions at the RA (or any other Government-related events) have, for all citizens of the CDS, past and present, a special meaning, a special purpose. We might dislike whoever is sitting on the RA, or disagree with the way the community is run, or even find all the Code of Laws a nuisance and stupid; in fact, we are allowed, even encouraged, to provide criticism of all of that (and offer alternatives — and get elected to roll them out!), and that ability to be critical and skeptic towards everything in the CDS is part of our core values. But in spite of all that, people remain citizens because they have an affinity towards the community. Many do not even actively participate in the politics or the management of the community (yours truly included — at least for the past four years or so). Nevertheless, everyone at least recognises the special importance of the CDS Government as a whole — as an abstract concept which is independent of the people currently serving in office — and it is that importance (the central 'core' or kernel, around which the community is built, if you wish) that confers it a certain degree of solemnity. Again, it's not because of the people currently serving or who have served in the past (although they are certainly worthy of our respect and praise!); it is because it's a central tenet of the CDS and which makes it different from all communities in SL.
As a show of respect towards the institutions — and not more than that! — it is, therefore, appropriate to adopt certain norms, conventions, and rules of behaviour when dealing with such institutions, i.e. when serving as RA member and/or attending the RA sessions. This is not supposed to be seen as a restriction of one's freedom of expression in any way — indeed, as far as I remember, we never forbade people to show up at the RA dressed in any way they wished (just subject to the limitations of the LL ToS regarding nudity). But we certainly demanded a certain degree of formality and cordiality; that the rules of discussion and debate were followed by all who participate; and even if we often bent those rules, we never broke them totally. All this happened more or the less spontaneously — again, AFAIK, there were guidelines published here and there, sometimes discussed or debated in the forums, but it was more something we 'grew' into, and much less something which was imposed upon us. And, again, it's worth noting that we are really just replicating the kind of solemnity and respect that we show iRL to similar institutions; while we could certainly establish different rules of conduct regarding what is appropriate behaviour during an RA session, we chose not to do so, and instead opted for mimicking — in the positive sense of the word! — the rules observed in most parliaments and similar democratic assemblies throughout the world (from the very small ones, such as homeowner associations, to large international parliaments, such as the United Nations). Note that this was a choice made by citizens of the CDS, not something 'imposed from the outside' — meaning that we obviously could override or change those rules at any point in the future.
So, and again this is just my personal opinion, I would prefer to consider that citizens voluntarily adapt their behaviour to what is commonly considered respectful and cordial (and I'm aware this changes over time!) as opposed to voting on a law defining what is appropriate and what is not. This is a subtle exercise in self-refraining, but it is also a way to avoid curbing one's freedom of expression; after all, it would mean that people attending RA sessions or running for office would voluntarily accept certain norms of conduct and ways of expressing themselves, just because they respect those institutions for their intrinsic value for our community — and not because 'someone made a law to make it so'.
One might argue that 'self-policing' one's behaviour and form of expression is not effective since everybody will have a different idea of what that means. Well, yes and no. There are complex social dynamics in play here, and one of which, as mentioned before, is that if you want to be elected to office, or being taken seriously for your ideas for the community, well, in that case, you need to win people's hearts (and votes!) and that most often means 'fitting in' — voluntarily! — by adopting a so-called 'expected behaviour'. Note that participating in Government is not mandatory for any citizen, so anyone profoundly disagreeing with such a view can simply opt out from participating; on the other hand, it also allows people to experiment with the boundaries of self-expression and test the waters of social acceptance and tolerance — something that I consider fundamental in every democracy worthy of that name — by being willing to 'bend the rules' and see how the overall community responds to that.
Instead of 'forbidding' icky speech at the RA, it's far more agreeable to me to let child avatars behave as they want — and see for themselves how that works out in the end. A very clever person may use a child avatar and constantly talk using icklespeak and nevertheless convey their ideas and concepts in a way that everybody can relate to them and even approve them at the RA. It may look weird on an RA transcript, but, then again, we don't impose correct grammar on the RA either (Disclaimer: I'm currently testing Grammarly and shocked at how bad my English is!). In general, however, my cynical view is that most child avatars will drop their icklespeak when trying to seriously persuade fellow RA members to vote on their ideas — and therefore voluntarily adopt the more formal and solemn speech appropriate to the importance and respect shown towards the RA. But this is just my opinion, of course, I might be completely and absolutely wrong, and in the same way we had a wave of tiny avatars 'taking over' the RA, oh, back in 2005 or so, we might have a wave of child avatars 'taking over' the RA right now, and establish icklespeak as the accepted language for all future legislation Surreal, sure, but not necessarily impossible
Oh, and if you think this has been a way-too-long post... I'll just add a reference to one of my favourite writers, Neil Gaiman, who talks about freedom of expression in comics. It's a decade-old article, and it refers to comics and not virtual worlds, but comic artists have faced way too often the issue about how far they can go with their freedom of expression, especially when it comes to depicting underage characters — some of which may be too sexualised for the taste of the mainstream public. It's an interesting read, especially because Neil comes from a country with less 'absolute' freedom of expression (the UK, back when he migrated to the US) and then, already in the US, learned all about the First Amendment and how comic artists are protected by it — even when drawing teenagers or children talking in icklespeak. I think that his conclusions are pertinent for SL just because SL also allows an incredible amount of creative freedom on our 'characters' (avatars), and here we're pushing boundaries and thresholds all the time...