NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106481

Just to give the moderators a heads up but this thread could and probably will get ugly when certain people get there hands on it.

By the way, I have tried to figure out what the line is for offensive material on the general forum. Is saying "I hate [insert group]" acceptable or do you have to advocate action against said people? I recognize that this is a public forum that exists within the restrictions set by its owner but what here transcends political and social commentary and becomes demagogic spouting? Considering the borderless nature of this site, what legislation applies or is it a question of international conventions on expression such as the ICCPR? Can individuals use this site for to actively recruit for groups that are considered illegal in a number of democratic nations?

I'm curious as to what the moderator’s think of this and what steps they have taken other than the "NationStates takes no responsibility for the material found on this site" warning?

As long as it's not something like 'I hate <insert random forum member here> because they are a stupid <insert random insult here>.'

That would be considered flaming and/or flamebait.

You can say you hate groups but not individuals who are on the site I think.

Thread: "Hatred" seems pretty much standard GF fodder to me.

As long as it's not something like 'I hate <insert random forum member here> because they are a stupid <insert random insult here>.'

That would be considered flaming and/or flamebait.

So a personal attack is considered off-limits but attacking an ethno-national, religious, gender, etc... group is not? Even though individual members of the NationStates community could be part of these collectives?

Whats with the flameing on thare ?

As long as it's not something like 'I hate <insert random forum member here> because they are a stupid <insert random insult here>.'

That would be considered flaming and/or flamebait.

So a personal attack is considered off-limits but attacking an ethno-national, religious, gender, etc... group is not? Even though individual members of the NationStates community could be part of these collectives?

As long as it's inside the rules...
I'm sure you've seen the types of posts that go on in General. Every other thread is a 'Homosexuals are evil' or 'Whites are supreme' thread.
As long as they don't flame (e.g. say 'All black people are <insert extreme abuse here>' then they are safe... I think.

As long as it's not something like 'I hate <insert random forum member here> because they are a stupid <insert random insult here>.'

That would be considered flaming and/or flamebait.

So a personal attack is considered off-limits but attacking an ethno-national, religious, gender, etc... group is not? Even though individual members of the NationStates community could be part of these collectives?Go figure.

As long as it's not something like 'I hate <insert random forum member here> because they are a stupid <insert random insult here>.'

That would be considered flaming and/or flamebait.

So a personal attack is considered off-limits but attacking an ethno-national, religious, gender, etc... group is not? Even though individual members of the NationStates community could be part of these collectives?

As long as it's inside the rules...
I'm sure you've seen the types of posts that go on in General. Every other thread is a 'Homosexuals are evil' or 'Whites are supreme' thread.
As long as they don't flame (e.g. say 'All black people are <insert extreme abuse here>' then they are safe... I think.
I think that "Is interracial sex beastiality?" did eventually get locked, although that one was back in the day.

Myrth,

Yet there are examples within those threads and many others that state "All [insert group] are predisposed or commit the following crimes with a greater propensity then the [insert group]" (That is the cleaned up version then you will get). But the comments are allowed; I still don't understand what the line is?

Stephanistan I see you browsing the forum, you recognize that certain material on this site is in violation of our nations hate legislation so how do you balance the necessity of allowing for expression versus your mindset from operating within said domestic legal parameters?

If you dont want to hear thare vewis dont look at the thread they have a mutch a right to do that (with in the rules of forum ) as any one else dont get in to a flameing match .

Myrth,

Yet there are examples within those threads and many others that state "All [insert group] are predisposed or commit the following crimes with a greater propensity then the [insert group]" (That is the cleaned up version then you will get). But the comments are allowed; I still don't understand what the line is?

I'm no mod, so I can't be clear on this, but from past experiences, there's nothing wrong with that. NationStates is a site of political beliefs. If someone believes that all <insert ethnic group here> are thieves and murders, then that is their belief. As long as they go about expressing their beliefs in a civilised (ironic, i know) way, then they are free to do so.

If this keeps going its going to hit the fan.

If you dont want to hear thare vewis dont look at the thread they have a mutch a right to do that (with in the rules of forum ) as any one else dont get in to a flameing match .

I'm asking for clarification on said regulations, I am using examples to illustrate my point of confusion.

If you need to know the rules you should read the sticky's

Im a little confused on this to we just dont need a major flame war on hear.

Hello M. Pot, have you met M. Kettle?Spoffin, you're just as much of a shithead as he is.

Ok thats above and beyond we should MOD alert it ..

Myrth,

Yet there are examples within those threads and many others that state "All [insert group] are predisposed or commit the following crimes with a greater propensity then the [insert group]" (That is the cleaned up version then you will get). But the comments are allowed; I still don't understand what the line is?

Stephanistan I see you browsing the forum, you recognize that certain material on this site is in violation of our nations hate legislation so how do you balance the necessity of allowing for expression versus your mindset from operating within said domestic legal parameters?The internet exists in virtually a legal vaccum. Technically, the data is under the laws of where it is stored, but hardly anyone is there to police this. NS's in-house rules are probably much more restrictive than the laws the internet falls under.

If you need to know the rules you should read the sticky's

Im a little confused on this to we just dont need a major flame war on hear.

I have no intention of starting a "flameware" nor do I think that any of my comments could be construed as being posted for that purpose. My apologies if anyone here has understood my question as an attack on their personal beliefs

I have read the sticky’s but most quickly degenerate into conversations before the issue they have been established to deal with has been flushed out appropriately, hence the reason for my post.

Myrth,

So was that statement in violation of the regulations and if it was, what were the repercussions?

Yes it was a flame, and if you look, Stephistan warned him for it. That's warning #1. He does it again, that's #2. One more, and he's off to DEATville.

WEell thare was just on an attack on a persnol group on that thread the game mod steped in ,, i did a MOD alert a little to late.

Hello M. Pot, have you met M. Kettle?Spoffin, you're just as much of a shithead as he is.Charming fellow.

Thats a flame. you know.......

Thats a flame. you know.......

Yes, it was a flame and I warned him for it. Let me know if he does it again.

I have not read through the whole thread.. however, I guess I'll do that now. If I find the subject matter to be offensive I will lock it. If it hasn't broken any NS rules I will then just leave it alone with the warning for the flame. However, if it turns into a flame war more warnings will go out before I lock it.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Myrth,

Yet there are examples within those threads and many others that state "All [insert group] are predisposed or commit the following crimes with a greater propensity then the [insert group]" (That is the cleaned up version then you will get). But the comments are allowed; I still don't understand what the line is?

Stephanistan I see you browsing the forum, you recognize that certain material on this site is in violation of our nations hate legislation so how do you balance the necessity of allowing for expression versus your mindset from operating within said domestic legal parameters?The internet exists in virtually a legal vaccum. Technically, the data is under the laws of where it is stored, but hardly anyone is there to police this. NS's in-house rules are probably much more restrictive than the laws the internet falls under.

There have been numerous domestic judicial decisions that have restricted certain groups from using their desiminating information from their websites.

In respect to the situation in NationStates, what national laws apply and from which country?

Well i dont want any part in a flame war tho i do wish to stop one from happeing thak you for the asstiance mod. and ill let ya know ..

Thats a flame. you know.......I'm not that fussed myself.

Myrth,

Yet there are examples within those threads and many others that state "All [insert group] are predisposed or commit the following crimes with a greater propensity then the [insert group]" (That is the cleaned up version then you will get). But the comments are allowed; I still don't understand what the line is?

Stephanistan I see you browsing the forum, you recognize that certain material on this site is in violation of our nations hate legislation so how do you balance the necessity of allowing for expression versus your mindset from operating within said domestic legal parameters?The internet exists in virtually a legal vaccum. Technically, the data is under the laws of where it is stored, but hardly anyone is there to police this. NS's in-house rules are probably much more restrictive than the laws the internet falls under.

There have been numerous domestic judicial decisions that have restricted certain groups from using their desiminating information from their websites.

In respect to the situation in NationStates, what national laws apply and from which country?

Well, as with all things to do with the internet, no laws apply to the website itself. Laws can only apply to the people using it.

Thank you modrutior for doing some thing before it hit the fan.

Thank you modrutior for doing some thing before it hit the fan.Urgh.

Ok, the problem is resolved. I locked it for obvious flamebait.. and there was enough flames in it to predict a flame war had it been left unlocked.


Stephanie
Game Moderator

Well lets be glad its over .. now we can get back to the game .

Well lets be glad its over .. now we can get back to the game .You made that into a much bigger deal than it was. Most everyone else was fine.

Lets not starts a disscuation on this ... a flame war was about to happen evry one knew that ...

Well, as with all things to do with the internet, no laws apply to the website itself. Laws can only apply to the people using it.

But if the website facilitates the dissemination of material outlawed by specific regional legislation then those connected with it who did not intervene to prevent it are accomplice.

But back to my first question, what is the line between political dialogue and puerile demagogy?

Lol i had a guy trying to convice me to endorse him to make him a delgate and he said to me once he was a delgate he would tryi to acces reginol control and kick evry one out so he can have empire .

(lol i would never be part of sutch a plot ....)

Lets not starts a disscuation on this ... a flame war was about to happen evry one knew that ...Well yeah, but I don't think it was helped by you telling everyone a flamewar was about to start when it was still way off is all. From the way you started posting, it actually seemed like you were trying to get the thread locked. Your first post there implied that any topic on which there could be a disagreement would lead to flaming, which is patently untrue.

After certian post i was trying to get a mod in thare to lock it becuse of the abusive natuer . and if i implied any thing sorry about that that was unforseen... to me.

After certian post i was trying to get a mod in thare to lock it becuse of the abusive natuer . and if i implied any thing sorry about that that was unforseen... to me.
You posted "(Whats with all the flameing ?)" well before any flaming had gone on.

I am confused as to what is happening now? I began this thread with a warning about a topic that might illicit statements in violation of NationStates regulations and then asked for clarification on what those rules were.

It seems now that individuals are arguing in the thread about an unrelated matter:

Lol i had a guy trying to convice me to endorse him to make him a delgate and he said to me once he was a delgate he would tryi to acces reginol control and kick evry one out so he can have empire .

(lol i would never be part of sutch a plot ....)

Unless you can assist me in my request for regulation clarification, please do not post in this thread, thank you.

Thats before i read soem of the thread and i got ideas that flameing was going on from people in this thread i aplogize for that ,

Thats before i read soem of the thread and i got ideas that flameing was going on from people in this thread i aplogize for that ,Well if you'd remember to check that first next time you might prevent some problems.

Exacly ill do that next time.

I have a little problem ..
5 big nation rped with me and i lost then i said the rp is over i lost
and i said ill move on
But then they KEEP HARSSING ME SAYING IVE BEEN CONQUERD AND IM UNDER A BLOCKAED IN MY OTHER POST WITH OTHER PEOPEL AND OTHER RP'S I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE BUT THEY DONT RECODNIZ ME IGNORENG THEM OR ANY THING THEY JUST KEEP GOIN ON AND ON ABOUT it .. I said its jutst a game leave me be in my other post but they contunie harassing me ! They alos said i cant even commnuite with people or trade or buy wepons in other threads and RP'S


Sorry about the caps guys i need to make it so evry one can see.

I've become a translucent apparition in my own topic thread.

If I am beating a dead dog, tell me and I will consider the matter closed but from the number of issues raised in this forum about statements and actions, I think some clarification would be helpful.

Especially if a one of the mods could contribute their ROE when dealing with the forum (not in technobabble if possible, some of us are just moving beyond the IBM PS 25 system). Thank you.

I have a little problem ..
5 big nation rped with me and i lost then i said the rp is over i lost
and i said ill move on
But then they KEEP HARSSING ME SAYING IVE BEEN CONQUERD AND IM UNDER A BLOCKAED IN MY OTHER POST WITH OTHER PEOPEL AND OTHER RP'S I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE BUT THEY DONT RECODNIZ ME IGNORENG THEM OR ANY THING THEY JUST KEEP GOIN ON AND ON ABOUT it .. I said its jutst a game leave me be in my other post but they contunie harassing me ! They alos said i cant even commnuite with people or trade or buy wepons in other threads and RP'S


Sorry about the caps guys i need to make it so evry one can see.

Please start your own thread and stop posting in this one if you have an issue other than the one this was created to deal with.

You can request a thread locked as thread author.

well the other guy started the war so called and keeps going witth it ill post my own trread tomrow i must go good night )

You can request a thread locked as thread author.

I am aware of that request but I would prefer that my question be answered or at least debated.

It seems that my response will not be forthcoming so I am asking the general community to post what they feel the limits are/should be so that a general picture can discerned about the spectrum of acceptable v. unacceptable comments.

Okay, no response to my inquiry so I will post examples found on the forums and ask whether this is considered acceptable material:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

it is quite acceptable to reject both the mudman and the red haired mongrel, in favor of the true aryan. (bold mine)

Regardless about your opinions on the matter, is this considered a free exchange of ideas or a statement in violation of the forum regulations?

or is this?

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=105125

Now we're voting on faggot marriages? They should all be shoved back in the closet.

Okay, no response to my inquiry so I will post examples found on the forums and ask whether this is considered acceptable material:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

it is quite acceptable to reject both the mudman and the red haired mongrel, in favor of the true aryan. (bold mine)

Regardless about your opinions on the matter, is this considered a free exchange of ideas or a statement in violation of the forum regulations?


Bad example: the Ernst Rohm persona was created to satirise the views of the nazis. This is why the name of a famously gay historical nazi was used. Ernst Rohm, will of course, IC deny this.

Okay, no response to my inquiry so I will post examples found on the forums and ask whether this is considered acceptable material:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106649&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

it is quite acceptable to reject both the mudman and the red haired mongrel, in favor of the true aryan. (bold mine)

Regardless about your opinions on the matter, is this considered a free exchange of ideas or a statement in violation of the forum regulations?


Bad example: the Ernst Rohm persona was created to satirise the views of the nazis. This is why the name of a famously gay historical nazi was used. Ernst Rohm, will of course, IC deny this.

Regardless of whether the post was made as part of a satirical persona, the statement remains the same for someone not familiar with that aspect of history. Is one allowed to write comments that could be or are offensive because it is an elaborate joke?

If I was a nation called Romeo Dallaire and I posted a message in the General forum demanding the torture and death of all Rwandan Hutus, would my subtle attempt at wit allow my transgression to be overlooked?

These are but two examples that I have found in an effort to get elaboration, please post others if you have them.

You're largely probing that infamous "gray area" of what is and isn't acceptable.

When it comes to things like this, it's largely up to the disgression of the mods. While this can be frustrating to the players, try to understand that we do need a bit of breathing room when dealing with such things. After all, if we lay down exact rules, we'll have people finding loopholes or walking a fine line of legality to everyone's irritation.

However, by and large, we try to give people a lot of leniency.

You're largely probing that infamous "gray area" of what is and isn't acceptable.

When it comes to things like this, it's largely up to the disgression of the mods. While this can be frustrating to the players, try to understand that we do need a bit of breathing room when dealing with such things. After all, if we lay down exact rules, we'll have people finding loopholes or walking a fine line of legality to everyone's irritation.

However, by and large, we try to give people a lot of leniency.

Thank you, my inquiries into this subject will now cease though with topics such as "Aushwitz the fraud", "Mormoms don't worship the devil" and such demonstrate the clear attention of certain people to offend regardless of your leniency and the sites regulation.

Thank you, my inquiries into this subject will now cease though with topics such as "Aushwitz the fraud", "Mormoms don't worship the devil" and such demonstrate the clear attention of certain people to offend regardless of your leniency and the sites regulation.

New thought on the matter: I'm sorry, I wrote this before I went over to General today to see what was happening in a Chinese language thread I had posted on. Considering that eight of the topics currently being viewed or responded to deal with very controversial matter (at the time of this post) that it is inevitable that someone will transgress.

Yet these threads multiply at an incremental rate unhindered by the moderators who would be responsible for responding to one of their participants almost certain forum violation.

I am also curious as to why this comment elicited no more than a passing interest from the moderators, did its bad grammar and awful spelling prevent what otherwise would have been a deletion?

maybe u should think about how the mods are stupid, and dont do anything but cause people to hate the game. maybe u should quit doin ur gay hobby, and open ur eyes. u are blind if u cant see the mods are just stupid and abuse their power. u need glassess, and a magnifying glass to see the mods deserve death if anyone. not us, the innocent. kill the mods.

Myrth,

Yet there are examples within those threads and many others that state "All [insert group] are predisposed or commit the following crimes with a greater propensity then the [insert group]" (That is the cleaned up version then you will get). But the comments are allowed; I still don't understand what the line is?

Stephanistan I see you browsing the forum, you recognize that certain material on this site is in violation of our nations hate legislation so how do you balance the necessity of allowing for expression versus your mindset from operating within said domestic legal parameters?The internet exists in virtually a legal vaccum. Technically, the data is under the laws of where it is stored, but hardly anyone is there to police this. NS's in-house rules are probably much more restrictive than the laws the internet falls under.

There have been numerous domestic judicial decisions that have restricted certain groups from using their desiminating information from their websites.

In respect to the situation in NationStates, what national laws apply and from which country?

The server is located in San Francisco, CA, USA, for what that's worth.

Thank you, my inquiries into this subject will now cease [...]

You're welcome. Well thought-out, rational, logical, and polite inquiries are always welcome, and rather refreshing as well. It's a nice break from the shrill tone we often deal with.

[...]though with topics such as "Aushwitz the fraud", "Mormoms don't worship the devil" and such demonstrate the clear attention of certain people to offend regardless of your leniency and the sites regulation.

True, true. Like I said, we try to avoid being too overbearing, and do allow for some offensive comments. I believe Scolopendra put our views in a rather succinct manner. He described it as "the Kindergarden rule". In other words, if the comment is something that would send a 5-year-old running to their teacher, we're likely to ignore it. Also, I'm a firm believer in the concept of "if you don't like it, don't read it". Of course, some things are so over the line they must be delt with, but we really do try to keep things "hands-off".

Finally, we can't read every thread, and often rely on the players to point improper threads to us.

New thought on the matter: I'm sorry, I wrote this before I went over to General today to see what was happening in a Chinese language thread I had posted on. Considering that eight of the topics currently being viewed or responded to deal with very controversial matter (at the time of this post) that it is inevitable that someone will transgress.

Don't read Chinese, myself. And as longs as nobody has transgressed, it can walk the proverbial line.

Yet these threads multiply at an incremental rate unhindered by the moderators who would be responsible for responding to one of their participants almost certain forum violation.

The forums ebb and flow. They have their bad periods and their not-so-bad periods. However, on average, they're pretty constant.

I am also curious as to why this comment elicited no more than a passing interest from the moderators, did its bad grammar and awful spelling prevent what otherwise would have been a deletion?

maybe u should think about how the mods are stupid, and dont do anything but cause people to hate the game. maybe u should quit doin ur gay hobby, and open ur eyes. u are blind if u cant see the mods are just stupid and abuse their power. u need glassess, and a magnifying glass to see the mods deserve death if anyone. not us, the innocent. kill the mods.

Oh, him. He's just mad because he got caught breaking the rules and I deleted a series of his nations. I don't feel like making him a martyr, so I let him rant. He's just making himself look foolish anyway.

Well thank you again MGH, your response was quite informative. I appreciate that you and the other Mods have quite the responsibility to oversee the forum while juggling employment and social lives simultaneously.

While I was writing this thread, I came across a number of cases from the United States Supreme and Divisional Appellate court decisions dealing with freedom of speech on the Internet.

The policy of "everything goes" is upheld in the vast majority of cases brought before the judiciary of the United States with certain exceptions, those dealing with the sites that might expose children to offensive material.

This is one of the few cases where a site can be held liable for its material unless there are specific warnings identifying that this sort of material might be found within.

My question is with the number of minors on this site, what measures (if any) have been taken to prevent the dissemination of offensive material and if discussions have been had to age-restrict the site or some of its forums?

P.S. I have found a number of short summaries from legal scholars dealing with issues such as slander and libel, would there be an interest in it posted here for reference?

Well thank you again MGH, your response was quite informative. I appreciate that you and the other Mods have quite the responsibility to oversee the forum while juggling employment and social lives simultaneously.

While I was writing this thread, I came across a number of cases from the United States Supreme and Divisional Appellate court decisions dealing with freedom of speech on the Internet.

The policy of "everything goes" is upheld in the vast majority of cases brought before the judiciary of the United States with certain exceptions, those dealing with the sites that might expose children to offensive material.

This is one of the few cases where a site can be held liable for its material unless there are specific warnings identifying that this sort of material might be found within.

My question is with the number of minors on this site, what measures (if any) have been taken to prevent the dissemination of offensive material and if discussions have been had to age-restrict the site or some of its forums?

P.S. I have found a number of short summaries from legal scholars dealing with issues such as slander and libel, would there be an interest in it posted here for reference?

If you read the ToS and FAQ sections you will note that we clearly take no responsibility for what is posted by Nationstates players and they take the responsibility on themselves for what they post. We also make it clear that we will not tolerate offensive behavior as laid out in the FAQ section and ToS. As we do realize there are many under-age players we do try to creative an environment that is suitable for all ages. Thus you see us often accused of "censorship" which is simply not the case, we are mostly just aware of the age dynamic of the site and do every thing within our power to keep the site clean from any thing that may be offensive/illegal. Of course we are covered from a legal stand point in the ToS and FAQ section.. although we do strive to have a pleasant site for people of all ages to enjoy regardless of any legal obligations that may go with it. Although just like any forum when you have no control over other people's actions.. when people hit that "I Agree" button they take on the responsibility for what they post and absolve Nationstates of any liability.

If you read the ToS and FAQ sections you will note that we clearly take no responsibility for what is posted by Nationstates players and they take the responsibility on themselves for what they post. We also make it clear that we will not tolerate offensive behavior as laid out in the FAQ section and ToS. As we do realize there are many under-age players we do try to creative an environment that is suitable for all ages. Thus you see us often accused of "censorship" which is simply not the case, we are mostly just aware of the age dynamic of the site and do every thing within our power to keep the site clean from any thing that may be offensive/illegal. Of course we are covered from a legal stand point in the ToS and FAQ section.. although we do strive to have a pleasant site for people of all ages to enjoy regardless of any legal obligations that may go with it. Although just like any forum when you have no control over other people's actions.. when people hit that "I Agree" button they take on the responsibility for what they post and absolve Nationstates of any liability.

Thank you Stephistan though I am still curious about your response to the question I asked on the first page. I have found the law that outlines the rights and responsibilities of moderators.

Section 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
interactive computer services available to individual Americans
represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of
educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over
the information that they receive, as well as the potential for
even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer
a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique
opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for
intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have
flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of
government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for
a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment
services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States -
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize
user control over what information is received by individuals,
families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive
computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization
of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to
restrict their children's access to objectionable or
inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to
deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and
harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for ''Good Samaritan'' blocking and screening of
offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
held liable on account of -
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
access to or availability of material that the provider or user
considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively
violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not
such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to
information content providers or others the technical means to
restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(FOOTNOTE 1)
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be ''subparagraph
(A).''
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of
entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of
interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by
the provider, notify such customer that parental control
protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering
services) are commercially available that may assist the customer
in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such
notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to
information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the
enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71
(relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation
of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand
any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State
from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this
section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may
be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with
this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State
law.
(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term ''Internet'' means the international computer network
of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched
data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service
The term ''interactive computer service'' means any information
service, system, or access software provider that provides or
enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
including specifically a service or system that provides access
to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by
libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider
The term ''information content provider'' means any person or
entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation
or development of information provided through the Internet or
any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software provider
The term ''access software provider'' means a provider of
software (including client or server software), or enabling tools
that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search,
subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

I have taken a look over to the Terms and Conditions and it has answered most of my questions though there still remains the issue of minors and offensive material.

Within certain western countries including the United States, children under the age of twelve cannot legally provide consent to abide by the regulations of a sites conditions. Therefore, if they cannot legally consent to absolving those connected with nationstates, the liability remains for any and all subject matter that constitutes exposing a child to offensive material. Even the cited code allows for State and Federal law to overide it if there are violations of Chapter 71, Title 18. Section 1470.

Section 1470. Transfer of obscene material to minors

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another
individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that
such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both.

Basically, why remain open to all ages when there is a viable legal issue regarding the participation of minors in this site?

Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer my question.

Well these laws don't apply to all of us moderators given a lot of us are not American citizens nor is the creator of this game.

However, we have no control over who lies and says they are what age. In large.. this is basically legally an un-enforceable law... and I seriously doubt you will see it enforced any time soon. Plus this would only affect once again American citizens.. the law may and does vary from country to country.. most ToS read "or whatever laws apply in the country you reside" There is just simply nothing on this site that could really be actionable anyway. It's an open forum.. For all we know people claim to be 21 and in fact could be 11. So as you can see.. this would be quite a hard case to make against the site and the hosting company..It's just not likely to ever be an issue. At least at this point of legal follow up of non-adult sites. Believe me if they were to enforce this .. there would be much bigger fish to fry on the net then Nationstates. I don't think we'd quite make the grade of being ruled as a site that would need such enforcement.

Well these laws don't apply to all of us moderators given a lot of us are not American citizens nor is the creator of this game.

Neither is the person who is incessantly bothering you about the legal parameters in which this site operates in, but since the server is located in the United States, the Supreme Court of that nation has jurisdiction over it and the material found within.

See The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (extreme example but provides legislative precendence)

However, we have no control over who lies and says they are what age. In large.. this is basically legally an un-enforceable law... and I seriously doubt you will see it enforced any time soon.

I do not disagree with you at all unless you install age verification software or ask the people submit there age after agreeing that " if any information provided is of a false matter then, etc..." Though the lying problem will still be an issue.

Plus this would only affect once again American citizens.. the law may and does vary from country to country.. most ToS read "or whatever laws apply in the country you reside" There is just simply nothing on this site that could really be actionable anyway.

I don't disagree with you on the international composition of the site's membership. In response to your sentence on actionable material, shame on you Stephistan :wink: :

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In my short time here, I have seen this one broken quite a number of times.


It's an open forum.. For all we know people claim to be 21 and in fact could be 11. So as you can see.. this would be quite a hard case to make against the site and the hosting company..It's just not likely to ever be an issue. At least at this point of legal follow up of non-adult sites.

It never hurts to be preventative in though. Especially when the law and those that work within it often pursue less than logical paths in interpreting the legal status quo.

Believe me if they were to enforce this .. there would be much bigger fish to fry on the net then Nationstates. I don't think we'd quite make the grade of being ruled as a site that would need such enforcement.

No disagreement there, I am merely playing devils advocate about a possible legal liability.

The problem I for see with this discussion is, while I understand and know you and I are having a mature intelligent conversation.. many on this site who simply liked to cause trouble for troubles sake might take this thread and start a whole rampage of stupid frivolous threats towards Nationstates. So, I'm less inclined to say much more.

However, As I first stated, Nationstates is not responsible for what Nationstate players post and that is made clear in our ToS and FAQ sections. When they hit "I Agree" they do in fact absolve Nationstates of all liability. It really is that simple. Sure we could get into the semantics of the truly un-enforceable law of minors under the age of 12.. yet I believe that's quite a stretch. I highly doubt it's an issue as stated that will ever come up. Nationstates would never raise any red flags within certain watchdog groups who do watch the net for hate crime. You have now cited Canadian law and I don't think it would apply to some of our more racists posters. If and when they cross the line we do come down on them. However, this is not just a game.. schools even use this site as a political source in social study classes.. we get email all the time from schools asking permission to use the site for educational purposes. So, this site is not nor could it really be deemed as any type of hate site. It's a forum and the free flow of thought and the right to express political opinions while they may not be popular with some is well within legal parameters.

Nationstates in no way supports or endorses the views expressed by posters. Thus we come full circle to the liability remains with the poster who posts it.

Even when we look at American or Canadian law , since you and I are both Canadian I'll use that.. we all know of the Heritage Front out west. They, while watched are not stopped from expressing their less then popular views and these "hate speech" laws are fairly recent as you know. I'm sure we shall see a time when this will come up in our courts on a case by case bases as the law may or may not be enforced on a much more trivial bases.. as it stands now this law is only enforced in Canada mostly for actions that follow the hate speech.. such as hate crimes. We don't really have a precedent yet to bring this into the main stream for expression of views. I would think it might not stand up to constitutional mustard personally.

The courts are far to back-logged to even take up such an issue as I understand the current situation of our own courts here in Canada.. and again.. how on earth would they enforce it? Good Luck!

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning.
--Frederick Douglass (1817?-1895)

Stephistan,

I understand your concerns and am willing not to continue this conversation to ensure that our legal discussion will not be used by those that do not comprehend the meaning behind the law (though I would have really enjoyed rebutting your points :D)


I request that this thread be locked and buried deep in the bowels of the NationStates server. Thank you Steph, MGH and the other posters for your suggestions and contributions.