Zuckerberg Comes for the Metaverse

[Mollymews]

11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

having an opinion that there was no holocaust is not against any particular law is it?

it is in many european countries. Basically the laws say that we can't use rhetoric to negate that a crime against humanty did happen

like: hey peeps! I was wondering if the holocaust actually happened ? What do you guys think ?

when the asker is pushed back on, they say stuff like: I am not denying that it happen,  am just wondering if it did and asking people what they think

in many european countries it is a crime to use rhetoric in this way. The countries have these laws because of their history. They have a painful history of people using word salad to create sectarianism within society

[Nick0678]

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

in many european countries it is a crime to use rhetoric in this way.

Well it really depends on the country and circumstances . in most cases these laws are eventually declared as unconstitutional because they violate the principle of freedom of speech.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Nick0678

[Mollymews]

21 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

Well it really depends on the country and circumstances because in most cases these laws are eventually declared as unconstitutional because they violate the principle of freedom of speech.

free speech even in the United States is not totally unlimited

for example an assertion that something is true when it is not true, and that assertion is intended to pillory/defame/disrepute another person or group of persons

the US Supreme Court limited free speech in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

 

 

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

free speech even in the United States is not totally unlimited

for example an assertion that something is true when it is not true, and that assertion is intended to pillory/defame/disrepute another person or group of persons

the US Supreme Court limited free speech in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

 

 

Yep that is true, its the same here in Canada. Slander and Defamation of character is actually an offence. Technically, Libel, Slander and Defamation is considered a crime that you can be charged for. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Sammy Huntsman

[Nick0678]

 

16 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

free speech even in the United States is not totally unlimited

for example an assertion that something is true when it is not true, and that assertion is intended to pillory/defame/disrepute another person or group of persons

the US Supreme Court limited free speech in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

Fair enough but you spoke about European Countries.

A typical example in regards to how such laws can be declared unconstitutional is the case against German historian Heinz Richter, who was denying Nazi atrocities in Crete during World War II, (direct violation of article 2 of 927/1979 / 4285/2014) in my country..

Article 2 – Public approval or denial or crimes

 Whoever intentionally, publicly, verbally or in print, over the internet or through any other medium or means, approves, ridicules or maliciously denies the existence or seriousness of crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the Holocaust and other crimes of Nazism which have been recognised by decisions of international courts or the Hellenic Parliament and this behaviour is targeted against a group of people, or member thereof, which is identified on the basis of race, colour, religion, genealogical background, national or ethnic origins, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, when this behaviour is expressed in a way that is capable of inciting violence or hatred or is of a threatening or insulting character against such a group or a member thereof, is subject to the penalties of paragraph 1 of the previous article.

The court found Richter not guilty on the grounds that, while his work was proven to contain historical inaccuracies, there was no evidence he intended to incite hatred against the people of Crete and that the 2014 law was unconstitutional as it violated the principle of freedom of speech.

If such laws are fair or not fair it's up to the court to decide.

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Nick0678

[Jackson Redstar]

bottom line is how is Facebook, er Meta, gonna still generate the billions in revenue. Ads in your face 24/7. Likely every thing you do or see will have a targeted ad to interact with. I would even guess 3d walking salesmen/women telling you about this product or that service

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, Jackson Redstar said:

bottom line is how is Facebook, er Meta, gonna still generate the billions in revenue. Ads in your face 24/7. Likely every thing you do or see will have a targeted ad to interact with. I would even guess 3d walking salesmen/women telling you about this product or that service

I am totally imagining an animated avatar, coming up to you and going I'm here to talk about your cars extended warranty. Lol. Or a scantily clad person whispering, there are women and men in your area that are looking for a good time. Lol. Sorry about that, but I am totally imagining that in a metaverse. Or some pill ad or other ad, we are bombarded with on a day to day basis. Lol 

[Coffee Pancake]

 

[Mollymews]

33 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

The court found Richter not guilty on the grounds that, while his work was proven to contain historical inaccuracies, there was no evidence he intended to incite hatred against the people of Crete and that the 2014 law was unconstitutional as it violated the principle of freedom of speech.

i looked this case up as seems quite interesting

from what I read the prosecutor recommended to the judge that Mr Richter be acquitted, as the prosecution could not present evidence that Mr Richter had committed an offence under the cited article of the law

am not sure where the judge got their view that the article of law under which the prosection was brought, was unconstitutional.

as Greece Constitution says:

Quote

Article 14

1. Every person may express and propagate his thoughts orally, in writing and through the press in compliance with the laws of the State.

Article 16

1. Art and science, research and teaching shall be free and their development and promotion shall be an obligation of the State. Academic freedom and freedom of teaching shall not exempt anyone from his duty of allegiance to the Constitution.

it would seem that the Constitution's Article 14 informs Article 16.  The judge tho may have some other rationale for what they have been reported to have said, but I dunno what that might be as I haven't yet been able to find a copy of the Court's decision

 

[Nick0678]

32 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

i looked this case up as seems quite interesting

You can read the courts decision here.

https://www-rethemnosnews-gr.translate.goog/rethymno/375432_athoos-o-kathigitis-rihter?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui

[Mollymews]

30 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

You can read the courts decision here.

thanks

snipping the decision:

Quote

 

".. the Greek legislator, by adding the part that refers to "decisions of the Parliament" can punish the approval, the humiliation or the malicious denial of the existence and seriousness of historical or contemporary events, the existence and legal characterization of which as crimes, he can determine, thus substituting the judicial function.

.. Moreover, the addition of the aforementioned element, not only was not provided by the framework decision itself incorporated by Law 4285/14, on the contrary it was clearly excluded, because it referred exclusively to the recognition of war crimes, etc. "by international decisions and / or national courts only. ...

... Finally, it violated the duty of mutual and loyal cooperation of the EU Treaty, because, in the incorporation of the above framework decision, it made the criminal dependent on "decisions of the Parliament", which it clearly excluded and thus deviated substantially from the criminal behavior it standardized, thus nullifying its intended aims and, in particular, legislative harmonization at European level. ..."

 

basically my understanding of this is that the judge determined that it is not the province of Parliament to determine what is or is not a war crime against humanity. That this determination constitutionally is the domain of the Judiciary

which makes sense to me, at least constitutionally under the separation of powers rule

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Mollymews
war

[Nick0678]

7 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

which makes sense to me, at least constitutionally under the separation of powers rule..

 

plus...

"In addition, it violated freedom of speech and academic freedom, given that laws that "recognize" (or enact) historical facts, even if they represent the majority, cannot be the basis of a democratic and pluralistic society and a modern rule of law. binding rules involving legal prohibitions and sanctions."

Needless to say as of March 2018, no one has been successfully convicted for genocide denial under this law.

[Prokofy Neva]

2 hours ago, Mollymews said:

free speech even in the United States is not totally unlimited

for example an assertion that something is true when it is not true, and that assertion is intended to pillory/defame/disrepute another person or group of persons

the US Supreme Court limited free speech in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

 

 

Molly, I don't know if you realize, when it comes to First Amendment jurisprudence, you can't just Google around and pick out search strings that seem to fit your understanding of it, like some ruling of 1974. Because another ruling might nullify it. The US isn't a civil law country, it's a common law country, i.e. the courts look at precedents, not law written in stone as such. Libel of public figures is the exemption to Gertz, in Times v. Sullivan for example, and that's what a lot of cases revolve around, whether the test is met of malice and whether there was loss of livelihood -- not just whether somebody didn't like a name they were called (in the Times v. Sullivan case the name was "redneck". 

Of course the First Amendment is limited. But you don't mention the key way this is so, which is that any local municipality can limit it in "time, place, and manner." So that's why the Million Man March can't march through Time Square and block traffic, it has to go to Central Park. And that's why people blocking the Brooklyn Bridge with some Occupy march are arrested. Etc.

Then there's the limitation that really matter, which is you can't "incite imminent action." Even there, the cases are far and few between, and getting them from the Internet is really, really hard.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

4 hours ago, Mollymews said:

it is in many european countries. Basically the laws say that we can't use rhetoric to negate that a crime against humanty did happen

like: hey peeps! I was wondering if the holocaust actually happened ? What do you guys think ?

when the asker is pushed back on, they say stuff like: I am not denying that it happen,  am just wondering if it did and asking people what they think

in many european countries it is a crime to use rhetoric in this way. The countries have these laws because of their history. They have a painful history of people using word salad to create sectarianism within society

In Russia, there are a lot of cases related to the case of an Arkhangelsk youth who set a bomb off at the FSB building. People on Russian social media might make a crack like "well, they had it coming to them, the way they oppress young people today." And that would get them 4-5 years in prison/labour colony. A journalist might comment that this was an act of desperation of a young man who had no prospects or who found all the privations and restrictions of Russian life too overwhelming, and then *she* would be jailed for "glorifying terrorism."

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Molly, I don't know if you realize, when it comes to First Amendment jurisprudence, you can't just Google around and pick out search strings that seem to fit your understanding of it, like some ruling of 1974. Because another ruling might nullify it. The US isn't a civil law country, it's a common law country, i.e. the courts look at precedents, not law written in stone as such. Libel of public figures is the exemption to Gertz, in Times v. Sullivan for example, and that's what a lot of cases revolve around, whether the test is met of malice and whether there was loss of livelihood -- not just whether somebody didn't like a name they were called (in the Times v. Sullivan case the name was "redneck". 

Of course the First Amendment is limited. But you don't mention the key way this is so, which is that any local municipality can limit it in "time, place, and manner." So that's why the Million Man March can't march through Time Square and block traffic, it has to go to Central Park. And that's why people blocking the Brooklyn Bridge with some Occupy march are arrested. Etc.

Then there's the limitation that really matter, which is you can't "incite imminent action." Even there, the cases are far and few between, and getting them from the Internet is really, really hard.

 

Well the issue I see here, is that not every country is a constitutional republic like the US. That and LL has to follow laws from every country it is in. That all being said, I live in Canada. We don't have a first amendment, nor a constitution. We have what is called a Charter of RIghts and Freedoms. That and Molly seems to be in the EU and they also don't rely on a constitution or a first amendment, when it comes to human rights. The issue here, is that the US is not the only country in the world and you seem to think that first amendment rights are transferable from country to country. 

[Prokofy Neva]

2 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I am totally imagining an animated avatar, coming up to you and going I'm here to talk about your cars extended warranty. Lol. Or a scantily clad person whispering, there are women and men in your area that are looking for a good time. Lol. Sorry about that, but I am totally imagining that in a metaverse. Or some pill ad or other ad, we are bombarded with on a day to day basis. Lol 

I think that what would happen is you are teleported to some fancy or thrilling venue and you see a fabulous car and it may even be free in that world and then a voice will begin to ask if you have extended your car's warranty. And a little lizard guy will come and say he's not going to pay a lot for his. It will all come to life in the round, and some people will think it's fun.

[Prokofy Neva]

18 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Well the issue I see here, is that not every country is a constitutional republic like the US. That and LL has to follow laws from every country it is in. That all being said, I live in Canada. We don't have a first amendment, nor a constitution. We have what is called a Charter of RIghts and Freedoms. That and Molly seems to be in the EU and they also don't rely on a constitution or a first amendment, when it comes to human rights. The issue here, is that the US is not the only country in the world and you seem to think that first amendment rights are transferable from country to country. 

Hardly, because I am very versed in all these international laws and their clashes and confrontations constantly at the UN, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has a carefully redacted Art. 19 on free speech, which contains exceptions for "order propre" which a Facebook or LL could invoke and which states do (maintaining public order) -- which in fact obtained all the consent of the countries signing it at one time, regardless of their later clawbacks.

And *that much* is not what we have in SL whatsoever, because as the jurisprudence of the treaty bodies shows around Art. 19 and other similar articles on racism and religion, criticizing the oppressive or damaging behaviour of a government or country is still allowed under Art. 19. It doesn't threaten "public order" in any good-faith interpretation of it to say Johnson or Putin or Biden's son are corrupt. That speech stands in UK and US; it doesn't in Russia. Or the SL forums for that matter.

That's why authoritarian countries struggle to charge journalists with "libel," or to claim teenagers incite "terrorism" if they go to a Navalny demonstration about government corruption, etc. This is an old story.

The Lindens don't claim the First Amendment should obtain in SL and neither do I; it's a private company and there are court cases that set the precedent for such companies getting to do what they want. Remember the First Amendment isn't about "everything and everything"; it's about *the obligations of the state* -- "Congress shall make no law" -- and your protection *from the state*. It is a law for states to abide by -- not companies.

It's not "my protection from Prokofy on Twitter" or Twitter's protection from me or other users. Twitter can set the bar as they wish; it's not the state. 

The precedent is set by the 2009 case of Estavillo v. Sony which undoes Marsh v. Alabama (1946) - Internet freedom fighters wanted the Marsh case concerning Jehovah's witnesses leafletting in a mall that was essentially a corporation taking over the space and function of a city square and town hall, where it was ruled the leaflets could continue, and apply it to all kinds of things like criticism of game companies and permission for LGBT groups in games. And in Estavillo the ruling was no -- it's a TOS, you sign it, it's a company, private or public but not the state, and they get to set their club rules. BTW this was the argument behind Boy Scouts of America case banning gays, that the rights of groups to free speech trumps the rights of individuals to free speech, but the Boy Scouts got hammered even with their favourable ruling and then changed their internal rule to permit LGBT.

The Lindens aren't even deciding among themselves, "Oh, we can't apply the First Amendment because we have people from China and Russia and even Iran here." Instead, they are behaving like a private company and saying "We need to create a climate good for our business and therefore we need to hide posts or delete posts that don't create that climate for our business in our view."

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Prokofy Neva

[Arielle Popstar]

7 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Well the issue I see here, is that not every country is a constitutional republic like the US. That and LL has to follow laws from every country it is in. That all being said, I live in Canada. We don't have a first amendment, nor a constitution. We have what is called a Charter of RIghts and Freedoms. That and Molly seems to be in the EU and they also don't rely on a constitution or a first amendment, when it comes to human rights. The issue here, is that the US is not the only country in the world and you seem to think that first amendment rights are transferable from country to country. 

Canada seemed to have had problems convicting Ernst Zundel a  while back stating it was unconstitutional:

"Canada twice tried to prosecute him for his activities under their laws criminalizing intentional dissemination of false news.2 Even though he was twice convicted, Zundel’s convictions were overturned by Canadian appellate courts. On appeal of his second conviction, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 declared the “spreading of false news” criminal statute as incompatible with Canada’s free speech guarantees and therefore unconstitutional." Link

The last couple of years there have been a lot of historical figures who have gone from being hero's to villains for different reasons and their history being rewritten as to whether they were a blessing or curse. Moderation of social media's  is far from black and white anymore as more people are demanding forms of censorship where it does not agree with their own personal beliefs.

[Sammy Huntsman]

14 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Canada seemed to have had problems convicting Ernst Zundel a  while back stating it was unconstitutional:

"Canada twice tried to prosecute him for his activities under their laws criminalizing intentional dissemination of false news.2 Even though he was twice convicted, Zundel’s convictions were overturned by Canadian appellate courts. On appeal of his second conviction, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 declared the “spreading of false news” criminal statute as incompatible with Canada’s free speech guarantees and therefore unconstitutional." Link

The last couple of years there have been a lot of historical figures who have gone from being hero's to villains for different reasons and their history being rewritten as to whether they were a blessing or curse. Moderation of social media's  is far from black and white anymore as more people are demanding forms of censorship where it does not agree with their own personal beliefs.

I am not saying the laws are perfect, and I feel like countries take advantage of certain laws and rights. By creating new words that allow for the censoring of certain words. I was just telling Prokof, that the US isn't the only country. 

[Prokofy Neva]

10 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I am not saying the laws are perfect, and I feel like countries take advantage of certain laws and rights. By creating new words that allow for the censoring of certain words. I was just telling Prokof, that the US isn't the only country. 

https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf

[Mollymews]

3 hours ago, Nick0678 said:

plus...

"In addition, it violated freedom of speech and academic freedom, given that laws that "recognize" (or enact) historical facts, even if they represent the majority, cannot be the basis of a democratic and pluralistic society and a modern rule of law. binding rules involving legal prohibitions and sanctions."

 

this is the judge's opinion.  Which is why I never quoted it. The judge's opinion is contrary to Article 16 of the Greece Constitution. That the judge's has this opinion had no material bearing on the acquittal itself

Mr Richter had to be acquitted as the prosecutor chose not to proceed with the case.  No proceedings, no case to answer. Mr Richter is free to go   

[Dyna Mole]

This is a good discussion of a timely topic.  As a gentle reminder, "if you have a personal disagreement, do not post about it on the Second Life community pages. Residents who have personal differences have other channels of communication available to them — private messaging in the forums, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life."  Please help to keep the conversation alive for everyone.

[Mollymews]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Molly, I don't know if you realize, when it comes to First Amendment jurisprudence, you can't just Google around and pick out search strings that seem to fit your understanding of it, like some ruling of 1974. Because another ruling might nullify it. The US isn't a civil law country, it's a common law country, i.e. the courts look at precedents, not law written in stone as such. Libel of public figures is the exemption to Gertz, in Times v. Sullivan for example, and that's what a lot of cases revolve around, whether the test is met of malice and whether there was loss of livelihood -- not just whether somebody didn't like a name they were called (in the Times v. Sullivan case the name was "redneck"

i agree with the second part of your post as that is how I understand it also

i just quote the first part of your post as I am not sure about this part

the case that came after Gertz which has a bearing on the topic, was Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 1990, where the US Supreme Court rejected (refused certiorari) the idea that opinion privilege existed in cases of libel

essentially the opinion privilege idea is that only an opinion which shows malice is unprotected speech. Which is not the situation in the USA due to the actions of the US Supreme Court. The situation is that an opinion need only be negligent for it to be unprotected (this situation is supported by precedent). Leaving the common law principle of fair comment deemed to be protected speech

in the Milkovich case, a journalist wrote that Mr Milkovich lied to the Court about their involvement in a event. The journalist asserted this based on their own observation of Mr Milkovich at the event.  The court ruled that the jounalist's opinion of Mr Milovich being a liar was fair comment

as a consequence of this Mr Gertz ended up winning his case also.  That what had been said about him wasn't fair comment, that the writers were at least negligent in their writings, if not malicious. Basically if we are going to impugn someone then best to be able to back that up with something other than one's own opinion

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Mollymews
about

[Prokofy Neva]

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

i agree with the second part of your post as that is how I understand it also

i just quote the first part of your post as I am not sure about this part

the case that came after Gertz which has a bearing on the topic, was Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 1990, where the US Supreme Court rejected (refused certiorari) the idea that opinion privilege existed in cases of libel

essentially the opinion privilege idea is that only an opinion which shows malice is unprotected speech. Which is not the situation in the USA due to the actions of the US Supreme Court. The situation is that an opinion need only be negligent for it to be unprotected (this situation is supported by precedent). Leaving the common law principle of fair comment deemed to be protected speech

in the Milkovich case, a journalist wrote that Mr Milkovich lied to the Court about their involvement in a event. The journalist asserted this based on their own observation of Mr Milkovich at the event.  The court ruled that the jounalist's opinion of Mr Milovich being a liar was fair comment

as a consequence of this Mr Gertz ended up winning his case also.  That what had been said about him wasn't fair comment, that the writers were at least negligent in their writings, if not malicious. Basically if we are going to impugn someone then best to be able to back that up with something other than one's own opinion

 

Again, literalism and search-stringing is not how to understand all this, but of course, that's how people conduct debates nowadays and there's nothing for it. I am not literally talking about what literal case came after Gertz or which literal argumentation came regarding libel itself.

I'm just talking about how Times v. Sullivan -- something I know by heart, not by Google -- to establish the concept of less protection for public figures and especially on *name calling," which is the forums moderator's handiest tool. Few of us here would meet the test for "public figure" but someone with a high traffic blog might meet it

Times v. Sullivan is about public figures, malice AND livelihood, i.e. you would have to show damages that affected livelihood. If anything, it's the cancellers today who cost people their jobs, not the free speakers.

Malice is very hard to prove, look at the cases. It doesn't mean only literally malice, like you are mean on Twitter. It means aforethought, intention. and belief that this is actually true, the plaintiff has to show "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant deliberately made a claim, *knowing* that it was false; actual recklessness, knowing that the statement was false.

There are hundreds of other cases with bearing. There's Brandenburg v. Ohio and the concept of "fighting words" which underpins the forums' moderators notions of "trolling" (not to claim that moderators target only unprotected speech -- far from it -- but they get to do that because they are not the state but a private company).

I don't think it's so useful to Google around and argue about the First Amendment, especially in a context where some people think Americans are only forcing their values on other people and being bullies -- as I point out, there are enough international agreements, including binding treaties that nations have signed that you can point to showing easily that if social media companies -- now to become Metaverse makers -- were states (and they aren't, and no court has proven that in our time -- yet) they would be the most abusive kind of government. That they fulfill the functions of government with things like creating a town square or the press are arguments that have not won court against against game companies and social media companies. By the time a judge might finally rule that they are states, there won't be any judges because someone will feel that any rule of law is a situation with "too many lawyers". And you know what they said in Shakespeare, and yes, he's often misquoted.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Prokofy Neva

[Mollymews]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Again, literalism and search-stringing is not how to understand all this, but of course, that's how people conduct debates nowadays and there's nothing for it. I am not literally talking about what literal case came after Gertz or which literal argumentation came regarding libel itself.

I'm just talking about how Times v. Sullivan -- something I know by heart, not by Google -- to establish the concept of less protection for public figures and especially on *name calling,"

Times v. Sullivan is about public figures, malice AND livelihood, i.e. you would have to show damages that affected livelihood.

 

 

i don't think we disagree on this. I think tho we talking about two different things

what I first posted was about ordinary people impugning other people and using rhetoric to do this and how this is illegal in some jurisdictions. Nick then mentioned that there is a free speech principle involved here

then i said that in the USA the case that surfaced this ordinary person to person situation was Gertz

then Nick raised Richter a case from Greece. A case in which proceedings were halted, prosecutor moved for acquittal. Judge told Mr Richter he was free to go (and also gave the prosecutor and the Parliament an earful about jurisdiction)

then you (Prokofy) raised New York Times vs Sullivan. Which is a different thing. Sullivan was a public figure, and the Court ruled that the higher common law bar (malice and livelihood) applied in the public figure situation. As you rightly point out

then I said the follow on from Gretz (in the ordinary person to person case) was Milkovich. That in this circumstance the common law bar is a lot lower. Don't have to show malice caused actual harm, only have to show that actual harm occurred thru negligence. And also that when we are not negligent (even if harm to livelihood did occur) then the words used are protected free speech (fair comment)  

and yes is true, I read all court rulings literally. Court rulings literally mean what they say and are not meant to be read in any other way

can certainly tho debate these issues from a philosophical pov, but even then I am pretty literal in these kinds of debates as well. Like somebody will make a point and I think thats a good idea, then I start thinking about how it might be done in practice. And when can't work out how it might be done then leave it on the shelf along with all the good ideas til one day are able to work out how to apply it