Proposed Constitutional Amendment - Campaigning

[Kaseido_Quandry]

The constitutional provision on campaigning reads

Section 4 - Campaigning
Campaigning for election in CDS can be done in-world only by means of unscripted items or simple notecard givers that are placed in traditional, predetermined central CDS locations, or by discourse between two avatars directly. No spamming of any kind is allowed, including the dropping of items on avatars without permission, sending messages by Second Life group IM (other than one's own faction group), or by shouting messages to large groups. Only two emails are allowed in a given election by any faction or representative of a faction.

This provision seems an unconscionable restraint on freedom of expression and assembly - which the CDS constitution grants via the UDHR, Articles 19 and 20, and by implication, 21. The notion that a candidate cannot discuss their candidacy with *two people* in a face to face meeting, or post their platform on a website (which the factions apparently used to do - how was that ever squared with this provision?) seems, frankly, surreal. I understand, also, that "meet the candidate" forums and debates have taken place - which seem to be a violation of this provision.

I would like to propose the following:

Section 4 - Campaigning
The freedom of candidates and citizens to speak and assemble in conjunction with campaigning for election shall be subject only to such time, place and manner restrictions as to prevent invasions of privacy or disruptions of the peace. Unsolicited electronic communications ("spamming") is not permitted; however, spamming shall not include signage or other displayed information, within Second Life or on the internet, which would otherwise be permissible speech outside the electoral context.

I'd like to see this taken up by the RA. I'm still searching for information on the procedure for citizen proposal of legislation - if anyone could provide an explanation, or better, citations to relevant documents, I'd appreciate it greatly.

I'm amenable to any changes of wording that endorse and enable freedom of speech and assembly, while prohibiting truly disruptive behavior.

[Arria Perreault]

Your concern is in the agenda of the next RA.

[Kaseido_Quandry]

Your concern is in the agenda of the next RA.

Thank you, Arria!

[Patroklus Murakami]

I would like to propose the following:

Section 4 - Campaigning
The freedom of candidates and citizens to speak and assemble in conjunction with campaigning for election shall be subject only to such time, place and manner restrictions as to prevent invasions of privacy or disruptions of the peace. Unsolicited electronic communications ("spamming") is not permitted; however, spamming shall not include signage or other displayed information, within Second Life or on the internet, which would otherwise be permissible speech outside the electoral context.

I'd like to see this taken up by the RA. I'm still searching for information on the procedure for citizen proposal of legislation - if anyone could provide an explanation, or better, citations to relevant documents, I'd appreciate it greatly.

I'm amenable to any changes of wording that endorse and enable freedom of speech and assembly, while prohibiting truly disruptive behavior.

I agree with this in principle, the wording of our constitution would seem to outlaw some perfectly acceptable and normal measures around campaigning and they have not been updated to take account that you don't need to be a member of a faction to run any more.

The advantage that the original has over this proposal is that the language is more precise. I know what a 'simple notecard giver' is, the text makes it clear that spamming CDS group chat is not allowed. I'm afraid I have no idea what 'invasions of privacy and disruptions of the peace' might mean. These concepts are very subjective; my standards for 'invasion of privacy' are likely to differ from the next person's.

I would prefer to keep the original text but change the final sentence to read:

"Only two group notices are allowed in a given election by any candidate standing for election."

[Patroklus Murakami]

At today's RA meeting, Kas and I were told to go off and prepare a new amendment which would deal with the concerns raised in the meeting.

I thought it might be helpful if we brainstorm the kind of activities we want to permit and the kind of activities we want to proscribe. We can then move on to drafting the legal text. Here is my starter list:

Permit

• Election debate
  Public meetings
  Person to person IMs
  A limited number of group notices
  Notecard givers
  Campaign posters
  Campaign newspapers
  Advertising on privately owned land
  Emails?

Proscribe

• Repeated use of group chat - 'vote for me, vote for me' etc
  Dropping unsolicited notecards on people
  Advertising on publicly owned land (unless equivalent space given to all candidates)
  Shouting in the vicinity of the election booths?

Feel free to add your thoughts and Kas and I will try to incorporate them.

[Claude Desmoulins]

At the moment I'm at a loss to find the transcripts of SC meetings where these regulations were discussed, though I'm sure the SC has taken up this issue before.

A useful guide may be to look at how the rules have been enforced in practice. Notable among those include that citizens have been given nearly limitless latitude to post signs, hold meetings, etc. on their own land. Because it was believed that getting faction platforms into the hands of as many voters as possible was a benefit, it has been previously held that objects which give a notecard on touch (which the toucher can always refuse, because of how SL works) were OK.

Once again there is a case where technology has leapfrogged the legalese used to control it. "...group emails" was written before group notices existed.

Please also keep in mind that the campaign starts May 1. Time is clearly of the essence.

[Rose Springvale]

I'm not sure how we can effectively utilize group notices with this number of candidates, and personally don't relish the idea of getting 15 or more group notices saying "vote for me" from individuals. In the past, CDS has organized two events, one informal "meet the candidates" where all candidates are invited, and a second formal debate, where representatives of factions were invited. Now more than ever, it is important to know where candidates stand on issues before electing them, so we need some method of learning this. Assume we have at least 13 candidates for 13 positions... how can we effectively learn their positions?

I think it would be good to do a questionnaire, with the kinds of questions we'd ask at a debate, so that each candidate has an opportunity to make their position known without the impossible task of 13 + participants of a debate. Beyond that, individuals, or groups, could host their own Meet the Candidate sessions, much as the factions have in the past. Otherwise, multiple debates with 3-4 candidates at each?

I personally HATE being bombarded with private ims askng for my vote, especially when they are from people i don't want to vote for. At least lets keep some limits... like the Do Not Call list?

[Kaseido_Quandry]

At today's RA meeting, Kas and I were told to go off and prepare a new amendment which would deal with the concerns raised in the meeting.

I thought it might be helpful if we brainstorm the kind of activities we want to permit and the kind of activities we want to proscribe. We can then move on to drafting the legal text. Here is my starter list:

Permit

• Election debate
  Public meetings
  Person to person IMs
  A limited number of group notices
  Notecard givers
  Campaign posters
  Campaign newspapers
  Advertising on privately owned land
  Emails?

Proscribe

• Repeated use of group chat - 'vote for me, vote for me' etc
  Dropping unsolicited notecards on people
  Advertising on publicly owned land (unless equivalent space given to all candidates)
  Shouting in the vicinity of the election booths?

Feel free to add your thoughts and Kas and I will try to incorporate them.

I think this list is a good start.

I'd include under "Permit"

• Any internet-based content not pushed at individuals: candidate/faction websites,tweets, for example
  Any non-excessive (you just can't avoid being subjective, without being silly, when discussing spam, IMO) use of social media directed towards individuals: e.g., Facebook notices

I'd like to hear more from veterans of previous elections as to what people found too intrusive or annoying - that'll help us craft an exceptions list narrowly, while preserving the primary goal of maximizing free speech and assembly in conjunction with the elections.

[solomon mosely]

i like the 'do not call' list. i got an IM from an AA resident a few weeks ago, with a few questions that i actually found relevant and didnt mind answering at all, but IMs asking me how i plan to vote, or what do i think is important, and then never hear from that person again once elected and issues are actually on the table... are annoying.

if we are going to allow group notices, but try and avoid notices from 13 candidates twice, how about two notices about the election and candidates, each with a NC attached containing each candidates platform NC?

and i know that cds and aa are entirely populated by those of unquestionable taste and aesthetic, but perhaps there should be some standard about the forms of advertising and signage on one's own property, just to be thorough. as in, no neon, no signs exceeding one's property lines, or limit to some proportion of street-facing facade, like in rl.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Remember that political signs are still subject to the non content based restrictions in the covenants.

I'm conflicted about the group notices. I don't want to be buried under campaign notices, but, if as Rose suggests, the group notices are the best way to communicate with citizens, then excluding political speech from the medium entirely seems to me to be going too far. Having candidates run as individuals will complicate the matter, as the sheer volume of political speech may rise.

[Rose Springvale]

** oops. what i mean to say here is that i agree with solomon missed that last post.

One thing we could do is ask candidates to prepare the information on notecards and deliver to the PIO or whomever is assuming that task. The individual notecards could then be grouped on single notices to be sent out at regular intervals over the normal channels. I don't think there is a limit as to the number of notecards that can be nested, so instead of dozens of group notices, we can have two a week, or whatever is reasonable.

[Patroklus Murakami]

At the last RA meeting, Kas and I were asked to work together on a revised proposal which I am setting out below.

The proposal is to use the constitutional amendment Kas proposed and supplement it with a bill which sets out in more detail the activities which are permitted and proscribed. The idea is that this means the constitution sets the general principles which are then explained in more detail in a bill. It helps to avoid the 'shopping list' which otherwise appears in the constitution and allows a future RA to amend the bill to take account of new developments rather than having to pass a constitutional amendment every time, for example, Linden Lab alters the Second Life communications options.

One idea we have not included, which was mentioned in this thread, is the idea of a 'Do Not Call' list. We thought that a simpler solution would be for people to tell candidates if their contact is unwelcome; no one wants to risk losing votes by being too pushy! Furthermore, we thought it would be unenforceable since chat logs and IMs are supposed to be private communications and so it would be difficult to prove that the rules had been broken. If people encounter problems with particular candidates they can, after all, simply mute them to prevent further unwanted contact.

I would be grateful if this could be put on the agenda for Sunday's RA meeting.

--------------------------------------------------
Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Replace
Article IV, Section 4 - Campaigning
"Campaigning for election in CDS can be done in-world only by means of unscripted items or simple notecard givers that are placed in traditional, predetermined central CDS locations, or by discourse between two avatars directly. No spamming of any kind is allowed, including the dropping of items on avatars without permission, sending messages by Second Life group IM (other than one's own faction group), or by shouting messages to large groups. Only two emails are allowed in a given election by any faction or representative of a faction."

with:

Article IV, Section 4 - Campaigning
"The freedom of candidates and citizens to speak and assemble in conjunction with campaigning for election shall be subject only to such time, place and manner restrictions as to prevent invasions of privacy or disruptions of the peace. Unsolicited electronic communications ("spamming") is not permitted; however, spamming shall not include signage or other displayed information, within Second Life or on the internet, which would otherwise be permissible speech outside the electoral context."

---------------------------
Proposed Bill - Election Campaign Rules

Preamble
This bill operates in conjunction with Article IV, Section 4 of the CDS Constitution to clarify what manner of campaigning is consistent with the right to speak and assemble and avoid invasions of privacy or disruptions of the peace during the election campaign.

The following activities are permitted:

• Election debates
  Public or private meetings
  Advertising public meetings by group notice
  Person to person IMs
  Notecard givers (which require someone to click on them to receive a notecard)
  Campaign posters
  Campaign newspapers
  Advertising on privately owned land
  Any internet-based content not pushed at individuals: e.g. candidate/faction websites, tweets
  Any non-excessive use of social media directed towards individuals: e.g. Facebook notices

The following activities are not permitted:

• Use of CDS or AA official group chat or notices to solicit votes
  Dropping unsolicited notecards on people
  Shouting in the vicinity of an election booth

The SC will, at minimum, organise the following election campaign activities on a non-discriminatory basis:

• Advertising on publicly owned land (with equivalent space given to all candidates)
  The SC will solicit two notecards from each candidate and circulate these, in batches, before the polls open. The deadline for receipt of the first will be the deadline for declaring candidacy, the deadline for receipt of the second is 7 days before the polls open. One circulation is to take place shortly after the deadline for declaring candidacy and the second is to take place just before the polls open. The SC also has discretion to handle the May 2010 election differently as candidates are already declared for this election.
  An event to 'Meet the Candidates' informally and/or an election debate

[Robert Walpole]

Question for the SC ruling in this case: Is the Campaigning Bill valid? YES or NO

The answer is simple, and was given by Gwyn. The bill is NOT in force. Why? Because any bill that modifies the constitution needs to pass by a majority of 2/3 in the RA to actually come into force. A bill that receives more than half but less than two thirds of the RA votes does not reach this threshold and is therefore not valid or in force. This bill received less than 2/3 of the RA votes and therefore did not pass the constitutional amendment threshold of 2/3 of the RA votes and is therefore not the law in CDS.

You can either put it back on the agenda and try to get 2/3 of the current RA to vote for it and make it CDS law, or else let the bill die and continue with current arrangements. But please note: when a super-majority of 2/3 is required for a bill modifying the constitution, a bill does not pass when it receives more than 50 per cent of RA votes. It only passes it it gets 2/3. If it gets more than half but less than 2/3, as in this case, it simply does not reach the required threshold and fails to pass and is not valid and does not come into force. That's the point of a 2/3 super-majority constitutional amendment requirement: it raises the threshold at which bills pass and become valid.

So the statement that "the bill passed, but not the constitutional amendment" makes no sense. This bill IS a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 RA majority to pass and become valid and enter into force. This bill did not get a 2/3 majority in the RA (even if it got more than 50%). Therefore, this bill did not pass, is not valid and cannot enter into force.

Basic logic. And another clear reason why you need a competent and professional judiciary. I won't hold my breath, though....