I have heard rumors that some educators have been invited to be part of the Metaplace beta testers group for this new virtual world environment created by Raph Koster. According to one of those rumored educator beta-testers, Metaplace is "one of the most powerful, user-friendly web-based / flash-driven virtual platforms out there." But of course, those are just rumors.
What is confirmed is this: Metaplace has the most awesome "EULAs" (end user licensing agreement) for a virtual world ever. Check it out:
Rights of Users
- Freedom of speech.
- Freedom of assembly.
- Peacefully represent their religious beliefs, but not to the exclusion or disparagement of others.
- Reasonable processes to resolve grievances with Metaplace and world creators.
- Own intellectual property they create in a world.
- Freely depart worlds as they desire.
- To be treated equally and not discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, or national origin.
- To be innocent of any violation until proven guilty.
- To be secure in their persons so that communications,
designated private spaces, and effects, are protected against
unreasonable snooping, eavesdropping, searching and seizures. Any such
activity will only be undertaken with good reason, such as
investigating the violation of the EULA, these Terms of Service, or
applicable laws.- The enumeration in this document of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by users.
It's like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made metaversal.It will be interesting to see how this gets tested when the first neo-nazi, child porn, and phishing worlds get developed and launched in Metaplace.
And there are just two responsibilities required of all users:
- Not to harm minors in any way or simulate harm to minors.
- Know, understand, and follow applicable laws as well as the EULA and this Terms of Service.
That's it. Don't hurt kids. Don't break the law.
Read this interesting discussion on EULAs and Terms of Service with Raph Koster of Metaplace and other virtual world designers.
No, it’s not at all like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Liberties, Rik, and you should know better than that.
Art. 19 doesn’t have any notion that you can’t “disparage” others or “exclude others”. This sort of vague and abusive language can’t be found in it, thank God.
“Disparagement” of religion may sound like a wonderful thing, but it also amounts to the global blasphemy law, “defamation of religion” which is the Organization of Islamic Conference is pushing heavily now at the UN, and which the Western countries, and other countries of the world who do not have one-party or one-religion states are opposing as well — in response to issues like the Danish cartoons (and that means restricting even discussion of the Danish cartoons, let alone reprinting of them as news, and not intent to incite hatred; Russian authorities recently confiscated an issue of Newsweek in Russian because it had an article mentioning the cartoons and containing a small illustration.
Wording like “disparagement” or “exclusions” is an unacceptable restriction on freedom of speech, because particularly oversensive and overagressive religious powers, who are the state in some countries, can construe any criticism as “disparagement” and can construe any minority religion as “exclusion”.
As for “exclusion,” you then end up restricting freedom of assembly if you can’t join together with likeminded persons on whatever principle, and are forced to accept unwanted individuals in your group for the sake of political correctness.
So these two concepts in fact are antithetical to the values in ICCPR which are under assault continually by authoritarian forces. They are an attempt to legislate morality.
Actually, Prok — I have a pending item on my to-do list to ask you about the alternate wording for that clause that you cited was under discussion at the UN. Can you drop me an email with the suggested wording?
I’m not sure where the line is drawn due to the two lists, but discrimination is part of freedom, and to curtail it is discrimination itself. If I have the freedom to associate with whomever I choose, to offer services to or employ at my discretion, telling me that sex, race and national origin cannot factor into my choice is limiting my freedom. If I want to only employ female German midgets that is my choice. Why is it your concern what criteria I place on my choices? If that requirement is to be only applied to the activities of the host company or government, that’s fine as long as it can’t be brought to bare against the individual. And in my own little world I wouldn’t want it applicable at the state level easier as it has been shown to influence contracting, sub-contracting, public places and other areas of universal freedom.
While I think Prok is right that there are difficult questions of where “disparagement” of a religion infringes on freedom of expression, I think for a company to explicitly enumerate this as a “right” for users to express their religious beliefs freely is still very significant and laudable.
yes, it does get messy. Can I critique the Mormons for their funding of laws that in my view violate gay partners right to have the same protections under the law as straight partners? What about criticizing FGM as a “religious practice”?
But I think there is a middle ground where you can protect legitimate commentary about a religion while also protecting the rights of someone to follow whatever religious practices they choose in the virtual world.
Thanks, Raph for your comments and openness to revising the terms of use.
Is the problem with having a no-disparagement clause, or is it with how different viewpoints are addressed? Disparagement does not equal “Disagrees with me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.”
I think you can calmly and reasonably state a particular religion’s viewpoint with which you disagree without disparaging it. Heck, as an example, see Rik’s posting about the Mormons. He calmly notes that he disagrees with their viewpoint, but doesn’t degenerate into any name-calling, etc.
There IS a point where one can agree to disagree reasonably without impugning them for holding different beliefs than one’s own. It’s not always easy to be rational, admittedly, especially when the disagreement hits topics one holds dear, but in the long run, it’s worth it to try.
Well put, Arcadian.
I think Prok’s point is that “disparagement” leaves a lot of room for chilling legitimate speech in the name freedeom of religion.