[MUD-Dev] Free Speech

[Ananda Dawnsinger]

----------
>From: Jeff Freeman <SkeptAck at antisocial.com>
>To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
>Subject: [MUD-Dev] Free Speech
>Date: Sun, May 21, 2000, 5:24 PM
>

>I just received this email from a player (references to WoD, that's us).

Oh, my.  A little legal knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing.  So I'm going
to be very dangerous myself and add my comments based on what I know. 
Hopefully others on this list will have the legal citations to back up my
wild ravings.

>Anyway... comments?  I'd tell him I reserve the right to ban people for
>ticking me off, but somehow I don't think he'll accept that.

Here's what I suggest:

1) Write the name 'Rykus' on an index card.

2) Seek out the nearest cheap 'n' cheesy arcade that still has
'Whack-A-Mole' or other mechanical game in which objects pop out of holes
and must be bashed with mallets.

3) Tape index card on 'mole' of your choice.

4) Insert coins.

5) Proceed to ignore all 'moles' other than the one labeled with the index
card.

6) Repeat steps 4-6 as desired, reapplying index card when needed.

>Text of an Email from Player "Rykus":
>----------------8<--------------------------------8<------------------------
>While this is a private shard....the U.S. Supreme Court for the last 50
>years has consistantly ruled that the "ownership" (public v. private) of a
>"Forum" (place where communications/statements are made) is not the
>determining factor concerning the First Amendment Rights of those
>within/using the forum.  It is rather the "nature" of the forum and whether
>it appears to contain more or less of the traditional and historical
>elements of a "public forum" where one's right to speak on any and every
>subject can not be content restricted.  

I believe he's forgetting the principle of "community standards."  In other
words, you may be able to read aloud from Penthouse Letters on the streets
of San Francisco, but not on the streets of rural Ohio.

(Or you may be able to boink in public in FurryMUCK, but not in WoD.)

In Marsh v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme court examined the
>rights of a Morman woman who was arrested by the police for prosteletizing
>on a "wholly privately owned mining town".  

Protected by both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Sexually
explicit speech and speech advocating illegal behavior (buying drugs) have
not traditionally had this level of protection.  And the Supreme Court has
upheld restrictions on such speech.  Not all speech is equally free, no
matter how much we might (or might not) wish it to be so.

>The theory of this hallmark case, was later expanded in a litany of both
>Federal and state cases across the country.  Ever wonder why Malls can't
>stop protestors: (Pruneyard Shopping Center case found that malls serve
>shopping and socialization function of historic downtown areas, and were
>therefor "nontraditional public forums").  Ever wonder why every Walmart has
>signs asking you not to respond to solicitors on the outside of their
>stores....rather than just banning them?

They can and do, however, kick out people who are being obnoxious,
disruptive, and/or belligerent.  (Well, shopping malls can and do.  From the
tales I've heard about Wal-Mart, on the other hand...)

>To be honest, there is little case law on first amendment rights on the
>internet, let alone concerning muds or UO type games.  

The successor to the Communications Decency Act would probably apply here. 
I'm shamefully ignorant of the specifics of its dictates, but I do know that
at least one service (gamers-network.com -- providers of the dereth.net
web-based e-mail addresses) closed its doors over it.

>The little that has
>occured has been concerning AOL, ISP's, Prodigy and the like concerning
>their 1) right to control content of user's speach, 2) their liability for
>the content.  The clear holding in every case to date has been that these
>forums are  "nontraditional public forums".  The company therefor has no
>right or legal justification to censor the content of a user's speach to
>another.  Given this, they are also not liable/responsible for what
>communications occur. 

Three words.  Terms Of Service.  That would be unconstitutional under the
above, eh?

I believe the 'nontraditional public forums' bit means that service
providers are Allowed But Not Required to enforce public terms of conduct as
long as these are clearly posted.  Service providers are NOT expected to
police private communications which take place through their network.

Even before AOL and Prodigy, GEnie had a strict 'no nudes' policy.  It
wasn't popular.  It was never changed and it was always enforced.

>The only exception to this rule is where the "owner"
>has by contract agreed to protect users from harassement, and then
>negligently does not enforce its own rules.

Wouldn't this apply to WoD?

>If AOL and Prodigy can not control the
>content of user's speach, then I do not see how any court would allow WoD
>admin to.

This guy really hasn't heard of Terms of Service, has he?

Besides which, a court would be much more likely to consider a MUD akin to a
bar or nightclub, and therefore with a broader right to restrict service to
'undesirable' clientele.

>I do not understand the position
>of Admin concerning their apparent desire to censor the content of players
>speach.  While Admin certainly has a right to set "content neutral" rules
>designed to stop harrassment of individuals and the like....I am very
>confident that legally, they have no right to restrict the content of speach
>between consenting players.

Two things:

1) The entire idea that MUD admins cannot restrict speech is, to the best of
my knowledge, based on a fallacy (see above).

2) Anybody who witnessed part of all of the conversation would be part of
the conversation.  If players are complaining, they're not consenting.

>Should Admin move to ban or in some other way punish players for the content
>of their speach, then they run the risk of litigation, and civil liability.

I wonder if Bunboy is doing pro bono work.

>The real issue
>should be...

Ah.  The REAL issue!  The past several paragraphs must have just been
prologue.

>even in this pretend world, why do we want, and how do we feel
>justified in trying to tell others what subjects can and can't be discussed.

Sadly, if somebody can't understand the value of playing nicely with others,
there's nothing that can be done to convince them.  They're likely to cling
to their right to insult, antagonize, and offend.

>If some hidden person says they did not like what Rykus was saying...Is that
>enough...If I said that young women under the age of 18 should be able to
>obtain legal abortions, (Is that enough), if I said I would kill any women
>or doctor who tried to abort a child of mine, (is that enough)....where do
>you draw the line?  

Where you (the admins) choose to draw the line.  And unless abortion were a
game mechanic or a part of a plot line, I have no problem forbidding
discussion of the topic in public areas.

>Who gets to decide? 

The admins.  Though it's a good thing for admins to listen to players'
feelings on the matter (and then follow their own informed counsel).

>How do you adequately disclose these
>dos and don'ts...acceptable subjects and banned ones to the players.  Do you
>have a list of OK subjects and all others are banned...do you do the
>opposite?

Is there something extra complicated about 'keep out-of-game discussions
private' and 'keep sexually explicit encounters private' that I don't
understand?

>If someone is forcing
>unwanted subjects/issues on another...that is harrassment.  But if two or
>more players want to discuss a topic....that should be a decision for them
>to make...not you, and not I.  

Excuse me, but if people were COMPLAINING about the tinysex, isn't this
'forcing unwanted subjects/issues on another'?

>This is not a humble or other opinion....Free
>Speach is the law of the land.  

As above, some speech is freer than others.

>If you are so concerned about players
>breaking the law...then it should be incumbent upon Admin to make sure they
>are not.

(I presume he means that the Admins can't be breaking the law, not that the
Admins need to stop players from breaking the law...)

Even if every legal 'interpretation' he gave above held water, a request by
admins to players to take an OOG discussion out of a public place Is Not
Breaking The Law!

Sheesh, damn rules lawyers...


(I hope this helped to 'validate your reality,' Jeff.  Hopefully somebody
will stop by with cases and legal precedents that we can all use when one of
these Rules Lawyers infests our MUDs.)



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev