LAYING DOWN THE LAW: JUDGING US

From the moment I read their FAQ at the Second Life Herald, I knew I'd want an in-world sit-down with Judge Mason and Judge Churchill, who very recently came into SL with the intent of creating a mediation court. (They describe themselves as real life law students specializing in Internet issues, but decline to specify which college they're attending.) After a few rounds of IM tag, the dark-robed, white-bearded gentlemen came by my office in Shipley to explain more.

On why they're creating a court

Judge Mason: Well, we both saw a need here in Second Life for a system such as this to be in place... some people have not been happy with the way Lindens have handled disputes in the past. Also, some property owners would like to know that there are additional avenues out there. At some point in the future, it is foreseeable for houses to be sold with clauses that homeowners follow certain rules. I believe there have been situations already where a certain theme for a land area is chosen and property owners are expected to abide by the rules. What we are doing is simply adjudicating matters subject to certain rules and regulatipns.

On who has sought them out, since announcing their intent

Judge Mason: We have had maybe six-seven residents contact us. We have received a few cases. But it is a slow process, and we are still setting up shop. Property disputes mostly seems to be the issue.

We have also received a free speech case. The Resident believes they have a cause of action under free speech rights [principles]. In general terms, a Resident is upset that certain actions were taken against them by the Lindens and feels that such action volated their free speech rights.

Judge Churchill: We are here to render judgment. The remedy also depends on the case. Some may result in a mediated dispute between parties, where both parties have stipulated to the use of the court.

On the remedy they'd seek, if the defendant was Linden Lab itself

Judge Mason: The remedy in an instance involving Linden Lab would be different. We are unable to issue a restraining order, force them to pay sanctions, etc. But, a judgment against LL would not be completely valueless. For example, the UN World Court has no enforcement power. Countries choose to follow their decisions or not. The United States, for example, has not. This does not mean that the court is useless. Merely that certain people choose not to recognize the decisions. At the very least, the party is afforded their opportunity to be heard, state their case, and have it objectively analyzed and decided.

On whether a court with no power of enforcement is a joke

Judge Churchill: No, there is a theory of law that starts from the ground up...

Judge Mason: Just because we cannot enforce a decision against the Lindens does not mean we cannot enforce any decisions. Often in cases where both parties appear in front of the court, the property in dispute will be held in trust, pending the court's decision. I foresee in the future that property owners would love to have a system in place where disputes could be resolved.

On whether a court decision might gain enough public acclaim from Residents that it would pressure Linden Lab to respond accordingly

Judge Churchill: Yes, exactly... this is the ground up theory. If the court returns respected decisions and the public backs them, it doesn't require enforcement in the traditional sense.

Judge Mason: Our Supreme Court faced this very issue when they were first starting out. The Court was trying to establish that they had the right of constitutional review.

On the credentials they bring to their judgements

Judge Mason: We are both law school students who have a particular interest in Internet law.

Judge Churchill: I think it is something that develops over time as we return decisions. We could give you all the legal credentials you want to hear, but that doesn't mean [the Residents] should respect us.

On how the judges will process evidence, since chat logs can be faked and screenshots can be altered

Judge Mason: We understand that. Just as people can get on a witness stand in real life and commit perjury. The same things will carry over (consistency of a side with the evidence.)

Here we also have other observers... [witnesses n]ot called by the court, but by the parties. The court is an adversary process where each side presents their best case. Thus each side will take it upon themselves to present the evidence in the best way possible.

On whether this "court" is actually just a mediator service

Judge Mason: That is one way you could put it. But, not many people understand what mediation is. Hence, we market this as a court.

Judge Churchill: I think it will be interesting to tackle issues of cybercrime and more difficult topics that are not cut and dry. Second Life is really and interesting place to see how the law can evolve.