Under heading 6, "User Conduct" of the TOS, is condemnation of members' countries forbidden?

[angelpatty]

The recent outbreak of civil unrest in the United States of America has led one of SL's personalities to condemn the United States of America in the Second Life Blog feeds, alleging that racism is prevalent in that country.

Isn't that a TOS violation under heading 6, "User Conduct" of the Terms of Service?

Certainly, the SL personality, whose video features are shown in "Featured News" in Second Life's Blog Feeds, has the right to express his opinion privately to others.  

But isn't open denigration of other members' countries a blatant violation of heading 6, "User Conduct," of the Terms of Service?

[Freya Mokusei]

No-one here can give you a definitive answer, because the Terms of Service are translated to LL differently than they read in English. It's essentially lawyer-speak; the rules that will be enforced can vary.

My personal - non-authoritive - opinion is that no, criticising the ruling class and justice system of a government and world power is not the same as denigrating a country's people. Many citizens of that country also recognise race problems being widespread, and the damaging effects caused by rogue governments and police forces affects many more than just a country's own people.

The only way to get a definitive answer would be to use tools available to report the content in question to Linden Lab.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

angelpatty wrote:

The recent outbreak of civil unrest in the United States of America has led one of SL's personalities to condemn the United States of America in the Second Life Blog feeds, alleging that racism is prevalent in that country.

Isn't that a TOS violation under heading 6, "User Conduct" of the Terms of Service?

Certainly, the SL personality, whose video features are shown in "Featured News" in Second Life's Blog Feeds, has the right to express his opinion privately to others.  

But isn't open denigration of other members' countries a blatant violation of heading 6, "User Conduct," of the Terms of Service?

---

The person in question is living in the United States, meaning that it's an opinion about something he has a certain amount of knowledge of.

[Rolig Loon]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

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.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

Hi Angelpatty,

The TOS has no proscription against voicing opinion. Denegration is defined as unfair criticism. For LL to act against claims of widespread racism in the US, I think there'd have to be a widely accepted belief that such claims are utterly false. That ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[Lindal Kidd]

Racism is prevalent in EVERY country.  It's a sad facet of human nature, but it's extremely common to find people who classify others into "us" and "them" on the basis of race, religion, appearance, political beliefs, or a host of other differences.

However, that's different from saying racism is CONDONED.  In the USA, where I live, official government policy and law is decidedly NOT racist, and in fact the behavior of MOST people (whatever their personal beliefs might be) is not racist.

I am, however, exasperated by those who cry "racism!" in response to arguments raised about differences on political issues, simply because the different points of view are held by people of different races.  Differences of opinion are NOT always, or even mostly, motivated by racial differences.

In any event, debate about events and their causes, whether well-reasoned or simple slinging of loaded epithets, isn't against the TOS.

[KarenMichelle Lane]

Here is how racism & intolerance currently works in the United States

Person "A" states an opinion about the acts or policies of person "B"

Regardless of what the facts are regarding the actual or proposed acts or policies are, the media, individuals without critical thinking skills and people who have never heard of free speech as protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights look at the following in this order..

Are "A" and "B" of the same exact class and status [station] in life?

NO - Pick any one of the following "Racist" reasons that "A" is a "Racist"!

a) "B" is of a different gender

b) "B" is of a different race

c) "B" is of a different sexual persuasion

d) "B" is of a different income level

e) "B" is of a different education level

f) "B" is of a different vice group [smoker, chewer, drinker, ]

g) "B" is of a different political persuasion [This only works when the "A" is a not a liberial]

h) "B" is of a different eye or hair color

g) "B" is of a different fan base of a sports league

i) "B" is of a different height

j) "B" is of a different attractiveness level

k) "B" is of a different body size

l) "B" is of a different grammar tolerance level 

m) "B" is of a different religion [practicing non-positive life affirming beliefs and practices "non-rights" that end lives [ like jihad ] (this only works when "A" is not a liberal)

n) "B" is of a different religious belief [non-practicing]

o) "B" is of a different booty size 

p) did i miss anything?

Then you are a class of racist because any disagreement about the acts or policies of person "B" mean you are a "hater" of "B" since their acts or policies are equal to anyone else's acts or policies! You are not allowed to debate ideas anymore. Didn't you get the memo?

 

But wait, all those things aren't about racism.......

Oh, you actually read all the way to this sentence? You are such a finisher.....What a snob you are. I bet you got "A"s in school...

 

Oh and the other answer ...

Are "A" and "B" of the same exact class and status [station] in life?

YES - Pick any one of the previous "Racist" reasons that "A" is a "Racist" because  you are a "hater" of "B" since their acts or policies are equal to anyone else's acts or policies! You are not allowed to debate ideas anymore. Didn't you get the memo?

 

 

This BS is what passes for discourse in the US these days.  Sigh

 

/me Steps off my soap box and throws it at the the nearest burning bonfire because nothing says you care more about tolerance and race relations than supporting a [unarmed] but dangerous criminal who was shot to death by a police officer of a different race than burning and looting your own neighborhood and businesses owned by those of your same said race or protected class. Brilliant.

[angelpatty]

Thanks to everyone who answered. Almost all your answers were on point and informative; especially the ones that said "You'll have to file an Abuse Report and find out."

Which is the proper answer, but one unlikely to avail, because I've been there and done that.

I basically wondered if it was one of those double-standard things I was likely to stub my toe on, where some native of Oxbridgistan could mount his soapbox and agonize all day about how my country is horrible and racist, and his country didn't crush our President's grandfather's testicles in Kenya out of racism - it was done out of anger and pain, obviously - but if I responded in kind by cataloging the benevolent policies of his country's colonial system, say the Oxbridgistani Raj in a certain South Asian subcontinent, I was well and truly screwed because this person is LL's Pet.

[Lindal Kidd]

Ain't nobody is LL's pet, not even LL employees. Just ask any of the 30% who got sacked a couple of years back. You obviously have a large chip on your shoulder about someone. Sorry about that...my best advice is, mute them and let it go.

[Lindal Kidd]

Oh, and all kudos to KarenMichelle, especially the closing paragraph!