Discrimination rules to be added to TOS?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Regardless, it is located in the USA and subject to its laws.

I think that you could make the argument that banning people who are, say, Asian IRL is against US law. I don't think the same could be applied to avatars that represent as Asian.

That said, as I've suggested before, I don't think it would be an awful thing to enforce non-discrimination against representations of groups who are subject to RL discrimination. I just don't know how you'd do that.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think that you could make the argument that banning people who are, say, Asian IRL is against US law. I don't think the same could be applied to avatars that represent as Asian.

That said, as I've suggested before, I don't think it would be an awful thing to enforce non-discrimination against representations of groups who are subject to RL discrimination. I just don't know how you'd do that.

But then would it technically be the avatar you are banning or the person behind the keyboard who is the legal entity.

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But then would it technically be the avatar you are banning or the person behind the keyboard who is the legal entity.

In Rowan's "no shoes, no shirt..." analogy (which I think is valid), your avatar is analogous to a shirt.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Madelaine McMasters said:

In Rowan's "no shoes, no shirt..." analogy (which I think is valid), your avatar is analogous to a shirt.

That could be a point other then that all the rest of the ones invited to take part in a public endeavour would also be "shirts". And the reasoning behind the no shirt, no shoes, no service is health laws so there is some justification to public safety.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But then would it technically be the avatar you are banning or the person behind the keyboard who is the legal entity.

Well, that's the point. You can't know anything about the person behind the avatar, which means you can't discriminate against them.

Banning discrimination against an avatar would have a different point to it: it would essentially be the same as banning hate speech -- because the discrimination is directed to the representation of a group, rather than at an individual. 

The US doesn't have laws against hate speech, though, so it isn't going to be a question of legality. A decision to ban discrimination against representations would be purely an LL decision.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

That could be a point other then that all the rest of the ones invited to take part in a public endeavour would also be "shirts". And the reasoning behind the no shirt, no shoes, no service is health laws so there is some justification to public safety.

Restaurants and clubs can legally enforce dress codes, which have nothing to do with public safety.

[Rowan Amore]

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

That could be a point other then that all the rest of the ones invited to take part in a public endeavour would also be "shirts". And the reasoning behind the no shirt, no shoes, no service is health laws so there is some justification to public safety.

The shoe part, yes.  The shirt part, no.  That's purely for aesthetic reasons and came about during the 70s in response to the counter culture of the time.  

 

[Arielle Popstar]

14 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Restaurants and clubs can legally enforce dress codes, which have nothing to do with public safety.

Even dress codes can only be generalized and not specific regulations against attire that may discriminate against one's gender or race expression. Discriminating against someone who has the look of a teen is going to be very arbitrary. Against a furry who is clothed, equally so. 

Ps, the restaurant is not allowed to forcibly eject a non compliant patron. So eject and ban is a no no.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Persephone Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Even dress codes can only be generalized and not specific regulations against attire that may discriminate against one's gender or race expression. Discriminating against someone who has the look of a teen is going to be very arbitrary. Against a furry who is clothed, equally so. 

Ps, the restaurant is not allowed to forcibly eject a non compliant patron. So eject and ban is a no no.

Restaurants, libraries & other public places may not lay hands on a person, but they can call police to do so. Nightclub bouncers might lay hands on people to eject them? I'm not sure.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Restaurants, libraries & other public places may not lay hands on a person, but they can call police to do so. Nightclub bouncers might lay hands on people to eject them? I'm not sure.

Apparently not:

A bouncer may not forcibly remove an individual from a public establishment. Rather, they must call the police to do so. Link Link

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

discriminate

If the Metaverse develops as some imagine it might then discrimination issues would have to be dealt with -- if the Metaverse becomes as important as the internet, or even more so, all people will need access to it. That's when anti-discrimination laws come into play, as people would be harmed if they couldn't access the public goods and services they need to survive.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Madelaine McMasters]

23 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ps, the restaurant is not allowed to forcibly eject a non compliant patron. So eject and ban is a no no.

There is no force in SL.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

There is no force in SL.

Right, not a true force but a virtual one wherein an avatar is "forced" to change their location relative to the virtual position they held before.

[Rowan Amore]

27 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Even dress codes can only be generalized and not specific regulations against attire that may discriminate against one's gender or race expression. Discriminating against someone who has the look of a teen is going to be very arbitrary. Against a furry who is clothed, equally so. 

Ps, the restaurant is not allowed to forcibly eject a non compliant patron. So eject and ban is a no no.

Restaurants cannot refuse service based on color, race, etc.  They are, however, allowed to refuse service if...

Patrons looking to enter a private establishment that requires a certain dress code for etiquette purposes

Any ban on how one looks in SL is based on the above.  How you appear, not who you are.  Since no one know who is behind the avatar there is no civil rights being violated.

[Rowan Amore]

23 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Restaurants, libraries & other public places may not lay hands on a person, but they can call police to do so. Nightclub bouncers might lay hands on people to eject them? I'm not sure.

LL is the police and they gave us eject and ban rights on privately owned spaces so I guess you could say we've "called the police" when we use that function.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Restaurants cannot refuse service based on color, race, etc.  They are, however, allowed to refuse service if...

Patrons looking to enter a private establishment that requires a certain dress code for etiquette purposes

Any ban on how one looks in SL is based on the above.  How you appear, not who you are.  Since no one know who is behind the avatar there is no civil rights being violated.

You're really trying to stretch the definition of dress code here to include the actual avatar which just isn't going to wash. If it is a advertised as a public venue then that means it should be all the public and as long at they have the right clothes on then it is immaterial whether they are a dwarf, fairy, giant, furry, or anything in between. 

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

LL is the police and they gave us eject and ban rights on privately owned spaces so I guess you could say we've "called the police" when we use that function.

The police would be an actual policeman ie Linden or officially and duly notarized representative of such. A Landowner is just a private citizen who is required to make out a report.

Note too you say Privately owned but neglected to mention the owner designated a particular area as Public. Therein lies the difference.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

You're really trying to stretch the definition of dress code here to include the actual avatar which just isn't going to wash. If it is a advertised as a public venue then that means it should be all the public and as long at they have the right clothes on then it is immaterial whether they are a dwarf, fairy, giant, furry, or anything in between. 

Too bad that's not how any of this works.  Your avatar is still an outfit you are wearing.  Unless you're a giant fairy furry in RL?  

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The police would be an actual policeman ie Linden or officially and duly notarized representative of such. A Landowner is just a private citizen who is required to make out a report.

Again, not how this works.  LL doesn't want to be bothered doing the policing of private property so they have 'deputized' land owners, so to speak.

ETA...we're always telling people to Use the tools LL has given you, aren't we?

Edited August 25, 2022 by Rowan Amore

[Kathlen Onyx]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You're really trying to stretch the definition of dress code here to include the actual avatar which just isn't going to wash. If it is a advertised as a public venue then that means it should be all the public and as long at they have the right clothes on then it is immaterial whether they are a dwarf, fairy, giant, furry, or anything in between. 

SOMEONE owns the sim so it's not public

 

[Solar Legion]

Oh for the love of ...

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

SOMEONE owns the sim so it's not public

 

It is Public if the owner has designated it as such. What are we missing here?

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Oh for the love of ...

Isn't it past your bedtime yet Daddy?

[Rowan Amore]

The only truly public land in SL is Linden owned land but then, you already know that.

 

[NevaehHeartstrings]

8 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Oh for the love of ...

Edited August 25, 2022 by NevaehHeartstrings

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

The only truly public land in SL is Linden owned land but then, you already know that.

 

and Lindens own it all because even the landowners pay rent on it every month and never finish paying it off.