From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<1993Jan7.032246.24052@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:52:01 GMT

dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:

>REAL WORLD RIGHTS DO NOT CEASE UPON ENTERING A VIRTUAL WORLD.

Agreed.  But, on a virtual world, what real-world rights do you have
that apply?

Constitutional rights do not apply in general as the constitutional
rights only apply to a government.

The right to bodily autonomy.  Well, the VR world doesn't force your
RL body to do anything.  So nothing in the VR world can affect that.
The same applies to the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of one's
property.

The right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex, race,
creed, or other recognizable minority status (recognized minorities
vary from place to place).  I suppose one could consider that a
publically offered mud could be restrained by this recognized right,
although the calme is dubious.  If you were kicked off a mud because
you were gay in real life, you might have grounds for recompense.  The
problem here is what constitutes fair recompense.  Seems rather iffy.

The right not to be lied about (libel and/or slander).  This is about
the only one I can see that has any applicability.  It is a civil tort
to lie about someone.  A mud could theoretically be used to spread
slander, and if it was the slanderee could theoretically sue for
damages.  Since this is a civil case, beyond reasonable doubt is not
necessary (a "preponderance of the evidence" is all that is required).

While people do have a right to privacy, the legal implications of
that right is that THE GOVERNMENT may not unduly intrude upon it.
It's not illegal for private citizens to take advantage of
carelessness on your part (for example, having sex with the pool man
in a room with the windows open) to then spread rumors about the
adulterous affair you're having.  You are expected to take reasonable
steps to protect your privacy from being invaded (i.e. pull down the
shades).

>At least not *entirely*.  Consider a corporate building.  No matter
>how heavy handed the company is, they cannot deprive you of your
>constitutional rights (well, they can and do, but most get caught)
>even if you are on their property.  They can kick you out, tell you
>where you can and can't smoke or eat, and enforece a dress code.  But
>they cannot torture you, kill you or otherwise do something you
>cannot escape by simply leaving.

Nothing you can do to me on a MUD prevents me from 'simply leaving'.
I can always "QUIT", or at least kill my client.

>But if you are forced by contract to suffer emotional scarring or
>endure humilation or sexual harrassment, you can sue or even bring
>criminal charges.

"Endure humiliation"?  No, that's not illegal.  I can humiliate you
all day long if I want.  Nor is sexual harrassment, although it can be
grounds for a civil complaint.  Civil tort law is a messy area, and
lawyers are daily inventing new ways to sue each other.

However, verbal intimidation, assault, or sexual ASSAULT are all
criminal offenses.  If I physically prevent you from leaving the
premises, that's confinement, which is also a criminal offense.

Note that all of the above (except sexual assault) may be legal if I
declare you to be trespassing on my property, by the way (common-law
civil arrest).

Also note that NONE of these can occur in VR, because all of the above
involve threats to bodily autonomy, and your body just isn't present
in VR.

>You give permission for a background check, you don't give permission
>to have your mail opened or your handbag searched while you are out
>of the office in another part of the building.

Well, opening someone else's sealed mail is a criminal (felony,
possibly) violation of federal postal code.  I'm not sure if it's
legal to search someone else's handbag if they left it behind.  It's
commonplace, in fact, to inspect detached property for identifying
items as part of an attempt to return it to the rightful owner.  This
relates to the fact that you are expected to take reasonable steps to
protect your own privacy.

>In muds, violation of privacy is probably the biggest potential
>problem.  Also there is Dismissal Without Cause and Harrassment,
>sexual or otherwise.  Not much else save really minor things.
>Violation of Privacy: Two major sources are logs and abuse of Wiz
>power.  Logs are effectively and functionally wiretaps, only harder
>to detect when in use by the victims, and should be treated exactly
>the same.

I am not clear that a mud log is in fact a wiretap.  You can only
place a wiretap on a common carrier, and the Internet is not a common
carrier, nor are muds.  Since muds are not accorded the benefits of
being a common carrier (indemnity of the operator for the content of
material transferred), they are not restricted in the same way.  One
could make a good legal argument that a mud operator SHOULD monitor
ALL traffic to make sure that no illegal activity (for example, the
data transmission of a visual depiction of child pornography) was
taking place on them.  Also, if you were to, say, dump the contents of
crypt.c on a open mud where a non-American non-Canadian could see it,
the operator would be liable for a criminal violation of national
security code for providing restricted export materials to foreign
nationals.  

[stuff deleted]

>Harrassment: Okay, there are two issues here.  What to do with
>players that harass other players, and how to prevent wizzes and gods
>from maltreating those they have personality conflicts with.  I'd say
>that if you have problems with harassment (sexual or stalking), get
>the real name of the offender and tell them to stop it or the victim
>will be given their name and the option to press charges.  

If you get someone who is stalking you in real life as a result of
mudding experience, by all means take necessary actions to protect
yourself.  If someone is stalking you on the mud, you have no legal
recompense.  I dread to think what effect this might have on PK muds
if you did have a RL legal recompense....  

>After all, even though I am verry worried about the trends toward
>every gesture being interpreted as Sexual Harassment, there are some
>clear cases out there, and they should be dealt with.  In general,
>requiring real names of all players is a good idea anyway, especially
>on muds with security problems.  This may sound fascist, but some
>people should not be allowed to run around loose in muds.  

Seems to me to violate your prior concern for player privacy, too.

>Of course, harassment may not be a big enough problem to take such
>strong measures, but it is illegal, whether over phone, mud or in
>person.

Phone harassment is a special case, and deals with the special social
role phones serve in our lives.  Harassment in person is generally
called either criminal intimidation, or assault.  In-person harassment
is, again, a threat to bodily autonomy; phone harassment is a "breach
of the civil peace" (it's unnecessarily disturbing your right to be
left alone in peace in your home).  Neither of these applies to muds;
your body is not present on the mud, and you are the one choosing to
connect to the mud (the mud did not call your house and expect you to
log into it).
--
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy - but that could change.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.misc