Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
I didn't say they can't set rules, I'm saying they need to set rules that are clearly defined and will be the SAME rules from start to finish.
And I'm saying that if they set rules that never change, then bad actors will find ways to spread hate in ways not addressed by said rules. So they instead want to be able to make the calls as they go, and still be able to act against said bad actors.
There is not a perfect solution to this. The human experience is subjective, and the mores of society change with time. You are advocating for a fossilized morality that cannot work in a world that is changing constantly.
I agree there isn't a perfect solution to this, nor am I naïve enough to think my way here is perfect. It's not, it has it's flaws, that said however I tend as general rule of thumb to err on the side of free speech over that of stifling said speech. In this case let the consumer of what may be considered "hateful" decide whether the product succeeds or fails.
Wrong. You are not advocating for free speech--in fact, you are advocating against it by trying to restrict a speaker's ability to control THEIR OWN speech.
Morality clauses do NOTHING to limit a third-party's speech. They exist only to limit what can be done with the First Party's speech. In a situation where a morality clause exists, Ernie is free to write "Putting Racism Back into the Game" all he wants--his speech is not reduced in the slightest. What he can't do is write "Putting Racism Back into the Game and Using Wizards of the Coast's Speech as Part of my Efforts to do this." That is all a licensing deal is--it is an entity saying "I have this speech. It is mine. You can use it if you want." All a morality clause does is add "but if you are going to use my speech, please do not use MY speech in a way that I find unsavory."
Anyone who says that a morality clause in a licensing agreement infringes on speech understands neither free speech nor morality clauses in licensing agreements.
Ummm what? Right out the gate, your statement makes no sense. In this they (WOTC) have already controlled their own speech when they published their various works.
You are actually trying to argue that someone having the ability to control your speech is free speech. Are you hearing yourself here? And yes, morality clauses are the epitome of limiting third party speech! It is by its very nature telling someone "You can't write or do something that I disagree with". As a middle ground, between stifling speech and allowing carte blanche anything goes speech, having a defined and concrete definition that is not subject to the whims of whomever might be having a bad day that day is the most viable option.
Are we seriously doing the "Free Speech means that I can say anything I want at any time and no one can tell me to shut up?"-argument here? Because, for the people that aren't educated on what free speech actually means, XKCD has a relevant comic:
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to independent companies. If WotC chose to, they have the ability and the right to moderate their community and remove language and content that they feel tarnishes their brand.
As we can see from the recent Twitter fiasco, and basically every online forum in existence, content moderation is good, actually. So long as it's done in the appropriate ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Wrong. You are not advocating for free speech--in fact, you are advocating against it by trying to restrict a speaker's ability to control THEIR OWN speech.
Morality clauses do NOTHING to limit a third-party's speech. They exist only to limit what can be done with the First Party's speech. In a situation where a morality clause exists, Ernie is free to write "Putting Racism Back into the Game" all he wants--his speech is not reduced in the slightest. What he can't do is write "Putting Racism Back into the Game and Using Wizards of the Coast's Speech as Part of my Efforts to do this." That is all a licensing deal is--it is an entity saying "I have this speech. It is mine. You can use it if you want." All a morality clause does is add "but if you are going to use my speech, please do not use MY speech in a way that I find unsavory."
Anyone who says that a morality clause in a licensing agreement infringes on speech understands neither free speech nor morality clauses in licensing agreements.
Ummm what? Right out the gate, your statement makes no sense. In this they (WOTC) have already controlled their own speech when they published their various works.
You are actually trying to argue that someone having the ability to control your speech is free speech. Are you hearing yourself here? And yes, morality clauses are the epitome of limiting third party speech! It is by its very nature telling someone "You can't write or do something that I disagree with". As a middle ground, between stifling speech and allowing carte blanche anything goes speech, having a defined and concrete definition that is not subject to the whims of whomever might be having a bad day that day is the most viable option.
Ah, so you fundamentally do not understand the topic of conversation—my apologies for assuming you did. Let me backtrack since that might help you.
A license - that’s the L in OGL - is a legal permission granted by Entity A to Entity B to use Entity A’s Stuff. That Stuff constitutes Entity A’s speech that they are letting another use. Think of it like sampling - Musician A might be cool with Musician B sampling some of Musician A’s stuff, but Musician A is not going to want Musician B putting A’s own words inside something A finds deplorable.
Musician A has every right to say when they license their music to B “you can’t use my lyrics for racism” - that is Musician A controlling how their speech is used. Musician B, of course, can still make a racist song if they want - nothing in the license stops that. It just means they can’t both make a racist song AND use Musician A’s lyrics as part of their racist song.
It is the same thing here - Wizards wanted to add a provision that says “hey, if you are using our Stuff, you can’t do it in a way we don’t want.” As statements - including Kyle’s discussed here - make clear, they really did not want their content; their speech used in a way they did not support.
I hope that helps - now that you understand we are talking about licensing, I think that should clear up why we are definitionally talking about Wizards’ speech - the license, and thus the proposed morality language, only applied to how Wizards’ speech was used, NOT third parties.
I need to remind some people to steer clear of discussions of politics/religion (referring to some stuff on the previous page) as they are not suitable topics for the forums.
I also need to remind people that if you cannot discuss something respectfully, then leave the conversation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Ummm what? Right out the gate, your statement makes no sense. In this they (WOTC) have already controlled their own speech when they published their various works.
You are actually trying to argue that someone having the ability to control your speech is free speech. Are you hearing yourself here? And yes, morality clauses are the epitome of limiting third party speech! It is by its very nature telling someone "You can't write or do something that I disagree with". As a middle ground, between stifling speech and allowing carte blanche anything goes speech, having a defined and concrete definition that is not subject to the whims of whomever might be having a bad day that day is the most viable option.
Are we seriously doing the "Free Speech means that I can say anything I want at any time and no one can tell me to shut up?"-argument here? Because, for the people that aren't educated on what free speech actually means, XKCD has a relevant comic:
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to independent companies. If WotC chose to, they have the ability and the right to moderate their community and remove language and content that they feel tarnishes their brand.
As we can see from the recent Twitter fiasco, and basically every online forum in existence, content moderation is good, actually. So long as it's done in the appropriate ways.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ah, so you fundamentally do not understand the topic of conversation—my apologies for assuming you did. Let me backtrack since that might help you.
A license - that’s the L in OGL - is a legal permission granted by Entity A to Entity B to use Entity A’s Stuff. That Stuff constitutes Entity A’s speech that they are letting another use. Think of it like sampling - Musician A might be cool with Musician B sampling some of Musician A’s stuff, but Musician A is not going to want Musician B putting A’s own words inside something A finds deplorable.
Musician A has every right to say when they license their music to B “you can’t use my lyrics for racism” - that is Musician A controlling how their speech is used. Musician B, of course, can still make a racist song if they want - nothing in the license stops that. It just means they can’t both make a racist song AND use Musician A’s lyrics as part of their racist song.
It is the same thing here - Wizards wanted to add a provision that says “hey, if you are using our Stuff, you can’t do it in a way we don’t want.” As statements - including Kyle’s discussed here - make clear, they really did not want their content; their speech used in a way they did not support.
I hope that helps - now that you understand we are talking about licensing, I think that should clear up why we are definitionally talking about Wizards’ speech - the license, and thus the proposed morality language, only applied to how Wizards’ speech was used, NOT third parties.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI need to remind some people to steer clear of discussions of politics/religion (referring to some stuff on the previous page) as they are not suitable topics for the forums.
I also need to remind people that if you cannot discuss something respectfully, then leave the conversation.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources