Guarantee VII - Protection of Minors
No Party shall, at any time, allow or be allowed to create, transfer, distribute, or transmit, any content which contains sexually explicit or implicit depictions of a minor. Nor shall any Party allow or be allowed to create, transfer, distribute, or transmit, any content which contains, any physical, psychological, emotional, or any other form of abuse on a minor where real Damage or Harm are a result of the creation of said content.
Don’t be a pedo. Not enough? Fine. If you are an adult, and you are sexually attracted to a minor, you are sick. I get “close in age” doctrines when it comes to personal contact. A 19 year old is not far off from a 17 year old, but the depictions of a 17 year old online could get the attention of a 45 year old, so it’s important to protect minors from known and unknown predators.
Part of me wanted to include language stating that violation of this Guarantee would remove all protection under the other Guarantees for the violator, but that would be a little much. It’s important that they feel the full weight of the legal system, not vigilante-justice because that is a slippery slope we don’t want to get started down.
The language describing actual abuse is a result of discussions with A Mad Woman Muses and Merlin Wolfhound. Channels like Daddy O Five which were created and operated with the specific purpose to profit from the physical, emotional and psychological abuse of children.
Guarantee VI - Due Process
No Party shall take any punitive action against any other Party without informing the second Party of the exact, specific, and precise nature and cause of said action, and, without providing the second Party reasonable opportunity to rectify the infraction and make good, their standing with the first Party. Nor may any Detached Party hold accountable any Parties whose actions are not directly, and demonstrably connected to the Detached Party.
If someone is in trouble, they need to be told EXACTLY why and they need to have an opportunity to make it right. It’s common decency.
I understand that a Platform banning for repeated infractions of the rules is going to happen, but at that point, the End User has already been given the chance to make it right, in many cases. However, the Platform still needs to tell the End User exactly why they’re being punished.
The section about Detached Parties not holding Parties accountable whose actions are not related to the Detached party has two meanings. Number one, don’t be a jerk and just pick sides in a fight you’re not involved in. I’m not trying to tell you who you can and can’t associate with, just don’t attack the person if they didn’t do anything directly to you. The other meaning behind this one is a direct ban on Platforms punishing people for their behavior that happened exclusively off of their Platform, including other Platforms and real life. A Platform that sets rules for behavior off Platform is trying to dictate parts of your life they have no business being involved in. If this kind of policy was allowed, then the Platform with the strictest rules would rule the Internet.
Guarantee IV- Data Distribution
No Party shall, at any time, allow or be allowed to transfer, distribute, or transmit, without express, explicit, written, and informed consent, any data, information, metadata, activities, property, both physical and intellectual, or rights belonging to any other Party.
This means no doxing, no identity theft, and no content piracy. An individual has the right to protect and control their private information and the things they create. Fair use exists for a reason, and its protections are extremely important, and I would argue fall under the 1st and 2nd Guarantees.
Guarantee V - Data Transfer In Criminal Prosecutions
No data shall be turned over to governments or law enforcement except upon presentation of a warrant, supported by oath or affirmation, and meticulously describing the information to be seized.
That means that if a government wants your info, they had better be able to prove they have a reason to take it. A very specific reason. It had been suggested by Firm Word that the language be changed to require a warrant in the location where the PLATFORM is located. The reason I’ve stated this guarantee this way is because many Platforms have offices in multiple countries, so that would mean the country with the strictest laws would have their laws apply to the entire Platform. If a country has blasphemy laws, for example, anyone who commits blasphemy under those laws, in any country, could be held liable. If you break a law in the country you’re currently in, you should be held accountable. This wording actually protects both End Users and Platforms because a Platform located in the United States may not comply with a foreign government, so the foreign End User would be more likely to be protected. Finally, if we were to apply those suggested changes, that would put this Guarantee in conflict with Article VII – Section 3.
Disclosure: Rhetorical Entertainment is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com