Freedom of Expression in Virtual Worlds

PDHoss writes "NYTimes.com has a story on freedom of expression as it applies to virtual communities, specifically 'The Sims Online.' How should issues of free speech, community standards, and censorship be addressed in the virtual world (given that we can barely agree on those issues in meatspace)?" There's also a story in the Independent, and we've mentioned this guy before.

Freedom of Speech

[Le Marteau]

First of all, "Freedom of Speech" in America is a loaded phrase.

"Freedom of Speech" is a government thing. It deals with the relationship between people and their government. Likewise "Censorship". Properly used, the political term "censorship" refers to a relationship between a person or persons, and the government.

None of these have to do with the case at hand. This is not a "Freedom of Speech" issue or a "censorship" issue, but something else. This is the relationship between a services provider and a client, and the political concepts of censorship or free speech have nothing to do with it.

Nothing to see here, move along

[davmoo]

There is no issue here. He who owns the server and pays its bills makes the rules. As a user, you are subject to the servers TOS and AUP. Don't like it? You don't have to participate.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[nudicle]

You're pretty much right on here ( not that you care that some ramdom /.'er says so :) ) ... except that it can be a little more complicated than that. Whereas the First Amendment applies to our relationships with the government, there are a couple of case in US precedent which extend this.

The big example is a line of cases in NJ in which the NJ supreme court read its own (ie NOT the US Const) as going further than traditional notions of 1AM requirements as regards freedom of speech in a private setting. To whit, this issue related to passing out flyers on the private property of a regional (huge) mall. Even though it was private property, the NJ supreme court reasoned that since the mall was acting as a pseudo-public entity anyway (malls replacing downtowns as places of congregation, malls advertising themselves and providing services as such, etc..), it had to accept limited and appropriate acts of free speech in certain areas -- notwithstanding the fact that this was private property.

There's also some US Supreme Court stuff like this regarding free speech in "company towns" but it's much more strictly limited than the big NJ deal I just mentioned.

If it were earlier in the day I'd look up the citations for the NJ case. IIRC, it was New Jersey Coalition Against War In The Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty from 1994, but I'm not 100% sure.

have a nice evening, nudicle

Re:Freedom of Speech

[secolactico]

In this case, I think it would be better left to contract law and the market place.

It's an electronic gated village. Private property. eMall cops and everything.

Indeed! The only laws that apply in the virtual world are those in the "Term of Service" that the "virtual citizen" agrees to upon signup. Yes, you are paying for a service (presence in the virtual world), but you'll find out that the monthly fee doesn't entitle you to much in the way of rights. And those terms are subject to change without prior notice.

This is a non-issue. And I didn't RTFA.

No, the server owner does not rule all

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, non-government space means whatever a corporation does is not "censorship." But not always. Restaurants and shopping malls may be privately owned, but certain individual rights apply there because they are considered public spaces. A mall owner could not, for example, ban black people from his premises.

Further Interesting Reading

[beowulf_26]

Raph Koster, overseer of Ultima Online, and previously of Star Wars Galaxies, has had some very specific thoughts on this topic.

Read on [legendmud.org] if you're interested.

Simplest Interpretation

[zangdesign]

The simplest answer is "my house, my rules". There is a clear separation between government censorship and private censorship.

In a sense, the People own the United States (irony, I know) and as such, the government (because it is owned by The People) cannot impose rules that prevent The People from speaking their mind. Now, certain allowances have been made for community standards and what not (and probably not wisely or justly), but all-in-all, very few compromises can be made to that rule without chucking it altogether. Since it is in writing, in principle, the People have the right to say what's on their minds, no matter how offensive or inane or stupid it is.

It's an entirely different matter when it's free speech on private property. The People don't own my house (or my server) and as such, I can freely tell others who speech I disagree with to go somewhere else. That is allowable censorship (although, to be honest, I don't think it's "censorship" in the sense that most people seem to). For the same reason that you can't walk into my house, take a dump on the rug, and leave, you can't just come onto a forum I've established and say whatever you like. Even if I imply that you can say whatever you like, unless you have a written guarantee, you are subject to my arbitrary whims about the content of your speech when posted on a forum I'm established.

The same holds true no matter the size of the forum as long as it is ostensibly private property. The publisher has every right (even a duty under their contract with their shareholders due to potential lawsuits) to monitor speech with they may deem harmful to the "community" and to remove such speech as they may deem necessary. They are not a government - they are not suppressing The People, just some people who use their services. Yes, it probably is censorship, but it is not Censorship, and they should have every right to do it as they see fit with their own property.

Re:Are you a facist?

[fucksl4shd0t]

I agree with censorship when it is to protect someone, such as the president, or even to protect you or I from harm.

This is the ambiguity that causes the struggle surrounding censorship. What constitutes harm? Are you talking about yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater? Or are you talking about some kid reading a book called "365 ways to cook human flesh" when he's a kid and turning into a cannibal when he's older? What is "harm" exactly when you're talking about speech?

The issue is further complicated when you think that here in the US, most kids learn that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Censorship is the exact opposite of that statement that we all grow up with.

There are those who would prevent you from reading any material on any religion other than Christianity, because they fear for your soul. In their eyes, it is harmful to consider other religions as valid representations of reality because to do so could bar you from Jesus's august presence in your afterlife! So for them, using your statement, it's perfectly OK to ban the Torah, the Koran, the Satanic Bible, the Compleat Witch, anything on astrology, and anything that even remotely represents any of those books and any others in a positive light. Is that a world you want to live in?

As far as this whole online censorship deal in role-playing games, I don't think the government should get involved. If they really feel the need, then just rate them periodically, just like we have with movies, and let the parents decide. Or let the kids decide for themselves, if you must. If the government gets involved and starts telling us what we can and can't say in an online role-playing game, then we've got big trouble. But what about the corporations?

Consider this: Some Disney dude goes into Pixar and says "You can't use the word feces in this stupid cartoon, find a better word." Is that censorship? Or is it quality control? So Disney sets up an online gaming world. They tell the gamers "You can't use the word feces in this stupid online game, find a better word." Is that censorship? Disney tries to appeal to stupid kids (not smart kids) and stupid parents (not smart parents). If a bunch of h4xx0rs show up in their game and start saying "Fuck you!" to everyone they meet, then Disney can't sell their game to their target demographic anymore. So I say those h4xx0rz should go pick a different game, or a different server, or something.

The only time this becomes a real problem is when there's only one online gaming setup. And we deal with that through regular free market tactics, right? ;)

Re:I have just one comment on Sims free speech

[Brightest Light]

In the 'Sims' games, the sims have a spoken language of gibberishness.

Re:Censorship...

[Erbo]

That's kind of like what I tell anyone trying to post commercial spam on Electric Minds: "Yes, there may be free speech...but there is no free lunch. You want to advertise your product, you can hire your own server; we paid for this one, and we don't want your crap here."

In actual practice, we haven't gotten that much in the way of trouble. Aside from commercials, we're fairly tolerant about post subject matter.

...no law ABRIDGING the freedom of speech

[plnrtrvlr]

Not to nit-pick, but the actual lines from the US Constitution are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It's article I, otherwise known as "the first amendment in the Bill of Rights" and it's quite a bit different from your line of "Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech" Your paraphrasing couldn't be much more in opposition to what the Constitution intended. This is what we get for making the study of the Constitution a two week interlude in the middle of American History in 9th grade, and the silent masses stay silent as freedom after freedom is abridged because it is too easy to pretend that these freedoms were never ours in the first place.

Re:Censorship...

[Blue Stone]

" Well, for those that understand the law, and rights, it's simple. When you are on someone elses property, wether it be their house, or their server.. you have no right to free anything. I can't walk into a store and start marching around with abortion protest signs. I will first be asked to leave, and then arrested for trespass. That's the way America works, for better or for worse."

In America (as it says in one of the articles, actually) you, lawfully, have the right to freedom of speech in privately owned malls, in some states.

(I shall refrain from suggesting that you might not understamd the law as well as you think you do.)

I suppose that this is because the malls are seen as so crucial to the community, being such a large part of the comunity's life, that their private-space-status is over-ridden by the community's needs, though that's just a guess.

Re:Two words: EULA and TOS

[DerekLyons]

So Peter Ludlow violates a game's EULA and TOS and gets kicked out because he's caught. This is news?

And that's just the problem. It's not clear that he *did* violate the EULA and TOS. What is clear, is that EA is very uneven in enforcing the same, and that goes all the way back to the Beta.