California Age Appropriate Design Code ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit.

[animats]

Press report

Actual decision.

The effect on SL is that legal crackdowns on adult activity are not likely to be a problem.

[Madi Melodious]

I'm not sure what this will bring or what you are hoping this will bring about.  It will not reverse new TOS or change SL back to the way it used to be.  An I'm not sure I want it back the way it used to be.   So many of my friends have already left and there is so much drama inworld by the new rules I've cut my SL time down to a 10th of what it used to be.   I'm discovering whole new games and platforms .      Black Myth: Wukong dropped today and Hello Games will be releasing Light No Fire soon.  

Light No Fire looks like it will have everything I love about SL in it.  Exploring an open world, building, and socializing with people from all over the world.    I'm going to be a bunny.

Edited August 20 by Madi Melodious

[Orwar]

   A paywalled article and a heap of legalese. 'Sup? 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Not a lawyer, etc., etc., and I don't really know enough about this law to opine whether I think this decision is a good thing or not (and honestly, I care much less about whether it's good for SL than I do about whether it's good for children), but . . .

. . . the way that giant impersonal corporations are treated as though they were people, with constitutional rights, is just bizarre, and seems to me to demonstrate how far we've wandered from talking about human rights, and are now mostly concerned with corporate rights.

"The court ruled that the requirement triggered strict constitutional scrutiny 'because it clearly compels speech' by forcing companies to 'opine' on what content could be harmful to children."

For god's sake, it's a corporation: it doesn't have "opinions"; it has, at best, "policies" and "procedures," most likely produced by a board of directors in consultation with a roomful of lawyers. And it sure as hell shouldn't have rights against "compelled speech" in the same way people do.

Again, I can't comment on the specifics of this law, but if it comes to a choice between defending a company's "rights" and those of children, I know which side I'd be arguing on.

Edited August 20 by Scylla Rhiadra
Typo

[Ceka Cianci]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Not a lawyer, etc., etc., and I don't really know enough about this law to opine whether I think this decision is a good thing or not (and honestly, I care much less about whether it's good for SL than I do about whether it's good for children), but . . .

. . . the way that giant impersonal corporations are treated as though they were people, with constitutional rights, is just bizarre, and seems to me to demonstrate how far we've wandered from talking about human rights, and are now mostly concerned with corporate rights.

"The court ruled that the requirement triggered strict constitutional scrutiny 'because it clearly compels speech' by forcing companies to 'opine' on what content could be harmful to children."

For god's sake, it's a corporation: it doesn't have "opinions"; it has, at best, "policies" and "procedures," most likely produced by a board of directors in consultation with a roomful of lawyers. And it sure as hell shouldn't have rights against "compelled speech" in the same way people do.

Again, I can't comment on the specifics of this law, but if it comes to a choice between defending a company's "rights" and those of children, I know which side I'd be arguing on.

From what I'm reading, bigger companies/corporations like google and meta were supporting it and could stay compliant because of the amount of lawyers that they could put on it to make sure they could.. This would have favored the larger corporations and opened up more of the market for them.

It's the smaller companies that would suffer and be vanishing trying to stay compliant.

Myself, I'm leery and tired of any politicians trying to sneak things in on the back end of bills, especially when they use children as it's shield as well as trying to suppress the constitution. Like a politician gives a damn about anyone but themselves and the money and power that is backing them.

They could have found a way to do this without trying to mess with the constitution. Gavin has been hard pressed pushing things to suppress the constitution more than ever lately and having them getting  over turned. So I don't trust much that comes from that region these days.

The little bit that I've read on this so far, it's with good reason for me to have concern.

There is more to this than , Think of the children.. They don't give a damn about OUR children..

When a politician is waving one hand and talking, keep a sharp eye on the other. That's what I've learned.. That and follow the money. Because it sure isn't  that they they have a good heart.

I keep a block of salt with me  just for them opening their mouth and saying much of anything.. lol

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

10 hours ago, Madi Melodious said:

I'm not sure what this will bring or what you are hoping this will bring about.  It will not reverse new TOS or change SL back to the way it used to be.  An I'm not sure I want it back the way it used to be.   So many of my friends have already left and there is so much drama inworld by the new rules I've cut my SL time down to a 10th of what it used to be.   I'm discovering whole new games and platforms .      Black Myth: Wukong dropped today and Hello Games will be releasing Light No Fire soon.  

Light No Fire looks like it will have everything I love about SL in it.  Exploring an open world, building, and socializing with people from all over the world.    I'm going to be a bunny.

a bunny, maybe i’ll check it out 😁

[Blush Bravin]

I don't think it really means much until it's been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and you know it will be. That ruling will really be the one that ends up making policy.

[Bree Giffen]

So the government and corporations will protect the children? Parents should be able to do that job and even the kids can protect themselves. It’s good that this law is getting hamstrung by the courts. That’s how we stop an executive and legislative branch from doing dumb things. 

[BriannaLovey]

9 hours ago, Orwar said:

   A paywalled article and a heap of legalese. 'Sup? 

Removing paywalls is trivial with archive.is: https://archive.is/QayRZ

[elleevelyn]

On 8/20/2024 at 7:15 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

For god's sake, it's a corporation: it doesn't have "opinions"; it has, at best, "policies" and "procedures," most likely produced by a board of directors in consultation with a roomful of lawyers. And it sure as hell shouldn't have rights against "compelled speech" in the same way people do.

over the last 50 or so years the US Supreme Court has made quite a few 14th Amendment rulings bestowing personhood rights on corporations. It is this 14th Amendment personhood right that enables 1st Amendment rights for corporations to act as they see fit in what they publish

[Perrie Juran]

On 8/19/2024 at 7:18 PM, animats said:

The effect on SL is that legal crackdowns on adult activity are not likely to be a problem.

This will only pertain to the United States.

[Katherine Heartsong]

On 8/19/2024 at 9:40 PM, Madi Melodious said:

I'm not sure what this will bring or what you are hoping this will bring about.  It will not reverse new TOS or change SL back to the way it used to be.  An I'm not sure I want it back the way it used to be.   So many of my friends have already left and there is so much drama inworld by the new rules I've cut my SL time down to a 10th of what it used to be.   I'm discovering whole new games and platforms .      Black Myth: Wukong dropped today and Hello Games will be releasing Light No Fire soon.  

Light No Fire looks like it will have everything I love about SL in it.  Exploring an open world, building, and socializing with people from all over the world.    I'm going to be a bunny.

OMG I hope that have cat avatars!!

Nope, not listed, so bunny it is!

Edited August 21 by Katherine Heartsong

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

OMG I hope that have cat avatars!!

Nope, not listed, so bunny it is!

watched the trailer, looks pretty cool 😁

[BriannaLovey]

22 hours ago, Perrie Juran said:

This will only pertain to the United States.

Yep. LL is going to capitulate to any jurisdiction that their target demographic exists within.

 

On 8/20/2024 at 12:15 AM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Not a lawyer, etc., etc., and I don't really know enough about this law to opine whether I think this decision is a good thing or not (and honestly, I care much less about whether it's good for SL than I do about whether it's good for children), but . . .

. . . the way that giant impersonal corporations are treated as though they were people, with constitutional rights, is just bizarre, and seems to me to demonstrate how far we've wandered from talking about human rights, and are now mostly concerned with corporate rights.

"The court ruled that the requirement triggered strict constitutional scrutiny 'because it clearly compels speech' by forcing companies to 'opine' on what content could be harmful to children."

For god's sake, it's a corporation: it doesn't have "opinions"; it has, at best, "policies" and "procedures," most likely produced by a board of directors in consultation with a roomful of lawyers. And it sure as hell shouldn't have rights against "compelled speech" in the same way people do.

Again, I can't comment on the specifics of this law, but if it comes to a choice between defending a company's "rights" and those of children, I know which side I'd be arguing on.

I don't have children, but if I did I would likely limit their Internet access to a bare minimum set of whitelisted sites/software. No amount of laws will be able to truly protect children from the horrors of the Internet if they cannot be enforced.

Edited August 22 by BriannaLovey

[Scylla Rhiadra]

13 minutes ago, BriannaLovey said:

No amount of laws will be able to truly protect children from the horrors of the Internet if they cannot be enforced.

I think this is true.

But I also don't see why this is an "either/or" proposition.

[BriannaLovey]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think this is true.

But I also don't see why this is an "either/or" proposition.

It isn't an either/or. Ceka explained the problem quite well though:

On 8/20/2024 at 3:45 AM, Ceka Cianci said:

From what I'm reading, bigger companies/corporations like google and meta were supporting it and could stay compliant because of the amount of lawyers that they could put on it to make sure they could.. This would have favored the larger corporations and opened up more of the market for them.

The more laws are created, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to navigate the growing labyrinth that is the legal system. Monopolistic and near-monopolistic entities have the incentive to keep pushing for expansions of the law in order to further fortify their monopolies in their respective industries. Appealing to the safety of children is the most low-hanging fruit as far as manufacturing public consent for this goes, since it takes advantage of our deep-seated parental instincts.

Edited August 22 by BriannaLovey

[Scylla Rhiadra]

24 minutes ago, BriannaLovey said:

It isn't an either/or. Ceka explained the problem quite well though:

The more laws are created, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to navigate the growing labyrinth that is the legal system. Monopolistic and near-monopolistic entities have the incentive to keep pushing for expansions of the law in order to further fortify their monopolies in their respective industries. Appealing to the safety of children is the most low-hanging fruit as far as manufacturing public consent for this goes, since it takes advantage of our deep-seated parental instincts.

This is a variant on the "if they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns" argument.

We live in a culture where almost every family has two working parents -- or is a single-parent family led by someone who may be holding down more than one job just to make ends meet. Moreover, it's a culture in which the "kids" are inevitably more tech-savvy than the parents. Of course parents should monitor and safeguard their children as best they can. But there are limits to what they can do.

The answer is not merely more laws, but actually better conceived and written laws that don't benefit mega corporations. I agree in the importance of copyright laws, for instance, but not in a copyright law written explicitly at the behest of Disney, which is what the US currently has.

Also, corporations are the problem, not the law. Bust up monopolistic or near-monopolistic mega-corporations.

[Ceka Cianci]

18 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is a variant on the "if they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns" argument.

We live in a culture where almost every family has two working parents -- or is a single-parent family led by someone who may be holding down more than one job just to make ends meet. Moreover, it's a culture in which the "kids" are inevitably more tech-savvy than the parents. Of course parents should monitor and safeguard their children as best they can. But there are limits to what they can do.

The answer is not merely more laws, but actually better conceived and written laws that don't benefit mega corporations. I agree in the importance of copyright laws, for instance, but not in a copyright law written explicitly at the behest of Disney, which is what the US currently has.

Also, corporations are the problem, not the law. Bust up monopolistic or near-monopolistic mega-corporations.

The sad part is we've let our governments get out of hand to where the people that are elected, especially to congress, are there for themselves and bought out by special interest groups.

That is on the local, state and federal level. One of the largest things in the U.S. ran just like a corporation right now, is the U.S. Government.

We have congressmen and women allowed to trade in the stock market and take money from special interest groups for voting a certain way backing certain bills or regulations or the removal of those.

The special interest groups are pretty much an unelected government  themselves that have more control over our politicians than the people that put them there.

What we will see is certain corporations and interest being favored depending on which side is in power.

What we haven't seen in a good while is what favors the people and building them up and strengthening them.

The constitution is what protects the people from the government and helps to keep them in check.  Maybe if these politicians paid more attention to that agenda rather their their own special interest, we wouldn't be a culture of broken homes and unable to have the time with our children to where we could be more watchful of them instead of letting society raising them..

look at what is going on nowadays with all the division that the government creates.. It's divide and conquering  rather than promoting civil discourse.. 

These are not our wise men and women at the council table leading us.. They are just a bunch of thieving liars pandering to who ever will fall for their phishing scams to keep power and their riches at any cost to us the people.

Even our freedom is expendable to them, because they keep trying to nip at it with over reaching every chance they get.

The older I get the more I just wish I was young and ignorant again to just how deep the corruption is..

In my opinion, there should be just as much removal of laws as there are made. Otherwise in time we won't be able to take a breath without breaking  a law. ( I edited to add this part in )Also that laws should be able to be read in a timely manner rather than slapping 20 to 30,000 page law on someones desk.. That and the removal of a law must have a weight of the law replacing it. Not in pages weight, but in what it covers.

No replacing laws against walking your cow after dark  for something like, voter registration law.. lol (end of new edit part)

I remember hearing something when I was in my early 20's that I can't remember who said it but it stuck with me  deep..

That we have to be careful of the laws we create, to not just look at the good that can come from them, but the bad that can come from them as well.

Myself, I'm not a fan of political arguments going back and forth to try and win an argument.. I think there is no bigger waste of time when you get two people from the opposite sides that will never agree and just argue to argue because I guess they just like to do that.. hehehe

I would love to see a world with much more civil discourse and each side asking actual questions of interest and respect of each others opinions even if there is disagreements..

It just feels like the older I get the more immature I see, what I used to  think were professional intelligent people in places of power..

That scares the crap out of me for my children.. Every thought I have  when it comes to things like laws is, how will this impact them in the future when we are gone and it's just them against the world?

I feel like I'm just blathering on now and  going all over the board.. I think that happens because I have a lot of concerns and realize what my father was talking about when he said never trust what the government is selling and question everything they do.

We have a long family history of reasons not to trust them, even if it's in writing ,then put under glass and frame.. hehehe

Edited August 23 by Ceka Cianci

[Theresa Tennyson]

20 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is a variant on the "if they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns" argument.

We live in a culture where almost every family has two working parents -- or is a single-parent family led by someone who may be holding down more than one job just to make ends meet. Moreover, it's a culture in which the "kids" are inevitably more tech-savvy than the parents. Of course parents should monitor and safeguard their children as best they can. But there are limits to what they can do.

The answer is not merely more laws, but actually better conceived and written laws that don't benefit mega corporations. I agree in the importance of copyright laws, for instance, but not in a copyright law written explicitly at the behest of Disney, which is what the US currently has.

Also, corporations are the problem, not the law. Bust up monopolistic or near-monopolistic mega-corporations.

There are laws written to "protect children" in some states that I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be crazy about. And the "corporations don't deserve speech rights" is the argument used by people who say that they shouldn't be allowed to take down posts they find objectionable.