Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
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.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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.
Raph Koster, overseer of Ultima Online, and previously of Star Wars Galaxies, has had some very specific thoughts on this topic.
Read on if you're interested.
--I hate big sigs.
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.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
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? ;)
Like what I said? You might like my music
In the 'Sims' games, the sims have a spoken language of gibberishness.
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.
Be who you are...and be it in style!
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.
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.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce