This is part one of the email interview with Hawk. It first appeared on these pages on April 30, 2003.

1. I have attached an html file with links to images currently in Cybertown and which were accessible at the time of this writing (April 24, 2003). These are either 2D images in residents’ houses or thumbnails of objects previously sold in the mall. Do you agree that some of them are too risqué for Cybertown if it is to be looked at as a "family" site? If not, why?

When I read this question I thought, "Uh-oh, do we have pornographic or obscene images in CT that have been missed?". I had a few weeks ago received an e-mail from a "concerned citizen" who informed me that there were a bunch of pornographic images in Cybertown but then refused to tell me where they were so that they couldn't get handled!

OK, to answer this question fully, let's take a look at a few things:

From the CT Constitution:

"9) In building your dwellings in Cybertown, the above rules also apply. In other words you cannot furnish your spaces with textures, texts, objects or images that would generally or usually be considered offensive, illegal, pornographic, racist or that violate copyrights."

From the Legal Notices:

"In consideration of being allowed to use the Chat Room facilities provided by Cybertown, you agree that you will not:

f. Post sexually-explicit images"

And from advice given to Security and the Mall staff to help them when deciding if a certain object can be approved for use in CT:

"What we're against is out and out pornography - hard-core or soft-core. Compare anything you're not sure about to whether it's generally considered acceptable for kids in movies, cartoons, comics, Anime, TV, games etc."

Now, let's look at some dictionary definitions:

por·nog·rag·phic: n. 1. Pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit. 2. Writings, pictures, films, etc., designed to stimulate sexual excitement.

ex·pli·cit: adj. 1.a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. b. Describing or portraying sexual activity in graphic detail.

sex·u·al: adj. 1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions. 2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

And let's look at the legal definition of pornography:

""Pornography" is a lay person's term, with no particular legal significance. Jones may believe that Penthouse is non-pornographic, while Smith believes that it is. Neither is incorrect.

The term of legal significance is "obscenity", which, after struggling for many years and through many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court defined in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows:

"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact (one who examines and settles a case) must be:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Note that part (a) does employ community standards. However, all three parts must be met for a work to be deemed obscene, and part (c), as the Court has held elsewhere, is a national threshold, not a community test.

It must be remembered that offensive material alone does not constitute pornography. All three criterion have to be fulfilled for a work to be considered pornographic."

For the above, some further dictionary definitions:

Pru·ri·ent: adj. 1. Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious. 2.a. Characterized by an inordinate interest in sex. b. Arousing or appealing to an inordinate interest in sex.

Las·civ·i·ous: adj. 1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.

lech·er·y: n. 1. Excessive indulgence in sexual activity; lewdness..

lewd: adj. 1.a. Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful. b. Obscene.

ris·qué: adj. Suggestive of or bordering on indelicacy or impropriety..

pro·pri·e·ty: n.. 1. The quality of being proper; appropriateness. 2. Conformity to prevailing customs and usages.

So, looking at the images supplied and the definitions above, clearly the majority of them are neither pornographic, obscene nor risqué and many are no different than those you'll see in kid's comics such as Anime etc. A few of the images could perhaps be considered borderline, more on the aspect of violence than obscenity, but in these instances it really often comes down to opinion (o·pin·ion: n. 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof) since these kinds of images often show up in Gothic and vampire comics and games for kids.

Plus most of those which could be so considered, as you pointed out are no longer available for sale in CT. Many of these images are on about the same scale as the models posing for the cover of a magazine like Redbook, Cosmo, etc. and whose access is not restricted for children. You can see more than what is shown in most of these images at many public beaches which also are not restricted for children. There is one image that is borderline in a possibly risqué way and the home owner concerned will be contacted. Some of these images I'm amazed that anyone could possibly object to as it would really would take a major stretch of the imagination and a couple of the images are really beautiful and aesthetic, in my opinion, of course.

What's interesting is that some people, while complaining about lack of free speech and 1st amendment rights yet want to censor object creators. That seems rather hypocritical to me. The fact that so much of this comes down to opinion is shown in the fact that we also get complaints that CT is too much geared towards the protection of kids and requesting that we open an adults section.

The bottom line is that children under teenage age have to get their parent's permission to join CT and parents are free to look around and make their own choice. It's a personal choice and different families clearly have different viewpoints as to what's OK for their kids to see.

2. What steps are being taken to get rid of undesirable images both in homes and in objects?

Well, the many already in-place mechanisms include, but are not limited to, these:

1) There is a CT Constitution, Legal Notices and a Unified Ban Policy that outline the rules concerning these and also when a person joins Cybertown they sign a Subscription Agreement that states that they are not allowed to post material that is obscene nor post sexually-explicit images.

2) The Mall has checkers, assisted by Security, who check images and objects against these guidelines and reject those that are not appropriate.

3) Blocks have Block Leaders part of whose function is to also check for and get removed images that violate the guidelines.

4) Security, upon being informed of violations of the above, are empowered to get the person to remove them.

Obviously since CT has a lot of residents and since the people mentioned above are part time volunteers, they have to rely on the residents themselves and on being informed of such violations - other than what they find as part of their virtual job functions. If a resident observes an inappropriate image per the above definitions they can also contact the BL of the block where it was observed and request that it be removed and if this doesn't happen they can contact Security to look into the matter.

Once again it so often comes down to differing opinions as to what is obscene and it is very easy to go too far in trying to censor artistic creations. With regard to how far differing opinions in this area can be, I am reminded of SINA - the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals - which attracted so many followers in the 70's before it was revealed to be a hoax.

3. I recently wrote that the word string "mocarski.net" could not be entered into the information for my home or inbox. Other residents noticed the same inability to type in the web address for my site. Was this a deliberate filtering of this by Cybertown staff or was it somehow a hacking job?

It was deliberately added to the list of items that are filtered. To quote you:

"Ironically, the elimination of my ability to link is not that big of a deal. It IS after all their site and they can do whatever they damn please there. It should be clear to readers, however, that it is a deliberate act to silence this dissonant voice, a definitive statement that they do not like the idea of this page or others that are similar and far more dissonant. It should be clear that any statement from the mucky mucks that they allow free speech is a hollow, specious claim."

Yes, a membership organization can indeed do what it wants, within the law of course. If we had indeed wanted to silence your voice, there are many legal things we could have done to do this and we have not done so - as you yourself said, "I mean three different sites get these threatening emails and *I don't get a thing. Nada, Zilch. Not squat*". Note, I'm not implying that we sent any threatening e-mails to anyone else either, because we didn't.

I'm not exactly sure why we would be supposed to like people telling lies about us. Doesn't make a lot of sense - I doubt if you'd like it if someone put up pages telling lies about you :) It was done because it was observed by others who read them that your pages had been becoming increasingly nasty and biased in recent weeks and there's no logical reason why we should want to enable people in CT to point them out to others. Hey, you were complaining that no-one was paying you any attention, so you got some attention :)

As it happens, during the last week since we've been in communication, a distinct shift to a more balanced and fair viewpoint has been observed and so we removed the filter a few days ago.

I keep hearing about these alleged statements about free speech - where are they? I've never made any such statement as far as I remember. However this seems an appropriate time to say something on this.

There are some common misconceptions regarding so-called "free speech". First of all, membership organizations - such as CT demonstrably is - are not actually subject to free speech laws in the usual way. Membership organizations can make their own rules regarding behavior, including speech and can terminate those who violate those rules. A typical example in another arena would be the Terms of Service of hosting companies which usually prohibit hateful and harassing or threatening speech. The fact is that "Free speech" as contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution does not afford blanket rights to express opinions in all situations.

It certainly does not establish a mandate that requires a website to put up with behavior that has been described clearly in the code of conduct as unacceptable. Cybertown has the absolute legally upheld right to exclude people for violating its Constitution and published codes of conduct. There is "free speech" and the "abuse of free speech". One of those abuses is legally termed "Libel" or "Defamation" and is also not protected by the First Amendment. Libel is the publication in writing of untrue degrading information about another living person. Publication does not mean printing in the newspaper, it means putting it out for consumption by at least one third person. When the untrue information is in writing (libel), there is usually no need to prove monetary damages. Punitive damages may be awarded where there is evidence of malice, fraud, or oppression on the part of the maker of the statements.

There are actually 3 categories of libel:

1) A statement that is defamatory on its face.

A statement that is obviously defamatory. A statement that is written to harm another person and the malice can be seen by anyone who reads that statement.

2) False Innuendo.

Persons with necessary contextual knowledge appreciate the statement as defamatory. An alternative meaning which the ordinary, reasonable person who can read between the lines would infer from the words is known as the false innuendo meaning.

3) Legal or True Innuendo.

While not defamatory on the face, the statement is defamatory when viewed together with extrinsic circumstances. True innuendo arises when words that appear to be innocent to some people appear as defamatory to others because they possess special knowledge or extra information.

Courts have held that merely prefacing an otherwise defamatory statement with the words "I believe..." or "I think..." or "I heard..." or other similar attempted disclaimers is not enough to eliminate the implication that the statement was intended to communicate facts. Similarly, changing names when there is a reasonable expectation that those reading know who or what is being referred to, is also not protected per the above definitions. How courts handle Internet defamation suits has been changing during the last couple of years and a number of recent suits have resulted in actual and punitive damages ranging from $400,000 to more than $750,000. In one case, some false statements regarding pedophilia cost the poster 2 and 1/2 years in jail.

Anyway, that's some basic information on what does and what doesn't constitute free speech. So no, we have not tried to silence your voice as in trying to remove it from the net. We have in the past tried to limit its appearance in our site, as is our right. And we don't currently do so. And I'm not accusing you personally of libel, far from it - the statements above are of a general nature and intended only to give people a greater understanding regarding that often bandied-about but generally misunderstood term "free speech". While we do not make any claims that we allow what is termed the “abuse of free speech”, even though we are under no obligation to be so we feel that we actually tend to be fairly liberal when it comes to true free speech, although some may disagree. We have let people say all sorts of things on the feedback boards that many other communities would not allow due to their crossing the line between free speech and the abuse of free speech.

4. As a follow up to the previous question, does Cybertown now have the capability to filter out unwanted language such as four letter words? Is it currently being used in all areas in which residents may post something, whether their own homes, message boards and chat? Please be specific about where the filtering system is being applied.

CT has had and has used the capability to filter out generally considered obscene words in chat for years. It was more recently added to other scripts throughout CT.

5. Still related to the above topic, if it is not being applied in other areas, when will it be?

See above.

6. One of the things touted before Cybertown went to a pay site was the new Silhouette technology. In your recent town meeting you mentioned that it is in the Alpha stage, and that Beta testing would be available to CT residents soon. By what approximate date can you or IVN promise that is will be available?

I requested this information and this was the reply I received from IVN:

"We will make no promises or projections as to when it will be available. The core technology is working and we have designed and are currently testing our stream router and server.

No one is more interested than we are in getting the technology to market and we will do so when we are confident that it is ready."

7. As I understand it, based on the details provide at the IVN site, this new technology will allow users to employ web cams to project themselves into the 3D environment. That may be an oversimplification, but that is the way I understand it. While this is indeed fascinating, what problems do you forsee in the way people utilize it? I mean this question in areas other than technical difficulties that may arise.

We see it having the most use in CT for family members in different parts of the country or world being able to chat while seeing their loved ones or even show home movies. I imagine your question has to do with how people might abuse it. In that context, the answers to question 1 and 2 would apply.

8. Please give a breakdown of the following:
a. number of paying customers
b. number of those with multiple nicknames
c. number of sponsored residents
d. number of family accounts

Well, this comes under the heading of internal company information (trade secrets) most of which I am not privy to and even if I were I doubt that I would reveal it as it's no-one's business other than IVN/Cybertown's. This is the kind of information that might be released to shareholders but being a member of CT doesn't make one a shareholder :)

However, that said, I see no problem in letting you know some recent stats since they were released to potential sponsors:

Current Monthly Stats (rounded):

Hits - 43 million
Pageviews - 16 million
Visits - 250,000
Unique visits - 140,000
Average length of visit - 45 minutes

9. Who has the final say on whether something changes in Cybertown? You or IVN?

IVN owns CT so they have the final say but everything is discussed in detail and decisions are jointly made based on the information to hand.

From the RAQ:

"38) How much input will IVN have into the running of Cybertown?

Answer: IVN owns Cybertown so of course it will have a say. At the same time, IVN is very sensitive to the needs of the community. IVN has a lot of respect for the way Cybertown is managed and does not see a need to interfere in the way it is managed."

10. Other than your relationship through Cybertown, what financial or personal involvement do you have with IVN?

The CEO is a very good friend and yes, I have a financial involvement which is of course my business :) Do I own IVN? No. Is IVN something I set up? No, IVN had been in existence for years before I ever heard of them. It was actually SFX who made first contact with them.

11. You mentioned in a previous email to me that you know that there are some problems in Cybertown. What problems other than technological glitches do you feel exist? What are you doing to solve those problems which you yourself recognize?

Well, this is by no means a comprehensive list but some of the things are:

1) The jobs and pay system needs an overhaul - and the Council has been working on this and it is almost complete.

2) The Mall guidelines and object class systems and pay systems need an overhaul and the Mayor and a Committee and many residents have been working on this and it also is almost complete. The class system has already been removed and there are more changes coming including a much higher percentage to object creators.

3) In order to build back up to where it was before CT became a subscription site, there are a number of issues being addressed:

a) A much easier intro to CT for newbies is being developed - a kind of expanded Quick Start Guide plus there is now a "Call a Guide" button.

b) Many more events, games, contests and activities are being introduced so that there's more to do. Some new ones are already running.

c) Many new features are being introduced to make it easier for NLs and BLs to do their jobs. Quite a number of these were introduced in the last 2 weeks.

d) As mentioned at my last town briefing, there are a number of resident-requested improvements coming such as custom homes and new 3D places.

I imagine that you wanted me to comment here on perceived problems with the political system or open communication issues but I will actually have a great deal to say about this in Part 2 of this interview next week. In the meantime I can tell you that the Council has been working on a new ongoing major project to involve a great many more residents in the CT government process.

12. In recent feedback messages much has been made of the need for a change in mall policies, and that seems to be happening at a rapid pace. One of the constant problems that mall managers seem to have is with the issue of copyrighted images. Yet, countless such images can readily be found in residents’ houses and even on the Council message board. The legal notices clearly state that residents should not be using them. Shouldn’t that apply across the board and not just in the mall rules?

Yes, this is indeed covered in the Legal Notices and the CT Constitution and other guidelines and when someone points out such a violation we get it removed, which is the same way that most other sites approach this issue. Copyright laws are not as clear cut as some might believe and as with obscenity laws there are a specific number of factors that have to considered together in order for something to be considered a copyright violation, but in keeping with our studies of the Copyright Act, a while back I gave this basic guideline: "If you don’t have the original artist or their representative’s permission in writing, don’t use their work in whole or in part.".

Continued next week...