Child girl AV, sex with Adult male AV? is this right???

2257 doesn't in any way overturn the requirement of "indistinguishable" nature of the material.

This is covered in 2256, 2257 and specially 2257A is about simulated sexual conduct. 2257 bringing back secondary producer headache.

You are wrong. It does not apply.

(a) In General- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2257 the following:

`(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter that--

`(1) contains 1 or more visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct; and

`(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

`(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of simulated sexually explicit conduct--

`(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer's name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;

`(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer's present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and

`(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.

`(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at their business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.

`(d)(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
...

If a sketch or art is not directly of a real child (ie if i was 10 and you made a nude sketch of me) and the same goes for a digital rendering. Aiko for daz3d is under 18 and a very child like model and there are child models for poser as well but they dont depict anyone in real life there for the legality of it is deemed legal not illegal. The same goes with SL its a model its not depicting any real life children in any way shape or form. The people behind the screens are adults. Basically what you then would have to look at is taking down any game that has a child like av in it because they start out as a nude base model and shut down the game companies for being pedophiles.

The clause in the law in there for a valid reason and Age play in sl even sexual age play does not equal pedophelia or child porn. You dont know the culture just what you think it is. You can run a test and understand it in a day if you wanted to damien.

etc.. read the text.

Mind if I just alter one little thing i your argument, so that it's fitting with the facts?

Picking up an ADULT dressed up as a child... NOT ILLEGAL IN RL!


Must you insist on a strawman to get your point across?

I have. You're still wrong.

But the argument is this: People are simulating sex with a child. Sex with a child is illegal, I might be going out on a limb, but I believe it true in most civilized countries.
There ARE childeren on the adult grid and they see this activity. Assuming you have kids... would you want your child to see someone boinking little Timmy?

And can you argue that SOME poeple might not nurture this "desire", as someone called it, and take the next step in RL after the intrigue fades in SL?
Repeatedly I have been told that I am the sick one because I can't separate RL from SL! Ok, lets say I can't and that I "need help".
These other individuals are supposed to be some kind of mental SUPERMEN that can distinguish the difference between their odbviouly questionable activity in SL and just turn it off in RL? That they had the thought AT ALL raises obviois questions about their moral situation... but somehow they have the Mental Strength to be able to block all these thoughts from there mind as they come in contact with a real child?

civilized country= a country where you dont use a leaf as your everyday attire.

Hey, pardon me. Your right in your point. But I've yet to understand the expression "strawman".
So Im missing your point with it, be so kind to get me straight with that?

etc.. read the text.

But the argument is this: People are simulating sex with a child. Sex with a child is illegal, I might be going out on a limb, but I believe it true in most civilized countries.
There ARE childeren on the adult grid and they see this activity. Assuming you have kids... would you want your child to see someone boinking little Timmy?

Hey, pardon me. Your right in your point. But I've yet to understand the expression "strawman".
So Im missing your point with it, be so kind to get me straight with that?

Honestly, Wrom the only way to prove you are right on this is to see someone charged with it.

Wrong about what, be specific, or wait for Ginsu Linden's response, since it's him that would decide this matter.

Dude, Torley already shot you down in Answers.
Get over it, Ginsu's not going to come back and reinterpret.

This is very true, the law is new and it needs to be proven, otherwise it's pretty mute however draconian it might seem. Yes this encompasses the very provisions that were struck down by the supreme court.

But LL would not want to create a libility due to this right?.

And on depiction of an acutal human being, most skins are photosourced, thus the av would be wearing such a skin, LL would have to provide (under this provision), documents that verify the age of that person on the skin (-- yes -- and this goes for the adult industry too, which is in an uproar over this).

And the next thing, there is a gesture set (i'll find it on slx) that a lot of these ageplayers use that have sounds of kids saying kinky but not explict stuff. I do not think that's going to fly.

In the UK we have this going at the minute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/5216504.stm

I really don't believe that SL has the technology to create an av from a photo than is indistinguishable from the real thing. Until that technolgy exists I don't believe you will see any prosecutions.

This is very true, the law is new and it needs to be proven, otherwise it's pretty mute however draconian it might seem. Yes this encompasses the very provisions that were struck down by the supreme court.

But LL would not want to create a libility due to this right?.

And on depiction of an acutal human being, most skins are photosourced, thus the av would be wearing such a skin, LL would have to provide (under this provision), documents that verify the age of that person on the skin (-- yes -- and this goes for the adult industry too, which is in an uproar over this).

And the next thing, there is a gesture set (i'll find it on slx) that a lot of these ageplayers use that have sounds of kids saying kinky but not explict stuff. I do not think that's going to fly.

Here's another argument:

But the argument is this: People are simulating murder by shooting. Murder is illegal, I might be going out on a limb, but I believe it true in most civilized countries.
There ARE childeren on the adult grid and they see this activity. Assuming you have kids... would you want your child to see someone shooting little Timmy?

And can you argue that SOME poeple might not nurture this "desire", as someone called it, and take the next step in RL after the intrigue fades in SL? Repeatedly I have been told that I am the sick one because I can't separate RL from SL! Ok, lets say I can't and that I "need help".

These other individuals are supposed to be some kind of mental SUPERMEN that can distinguish the difference between their odbviouly questionable activity in SL and just turn it off in RL? That they had the thought AT ALL raises obviois questions about their moral situation... but somehow they have the Mental Strength to be able to block all these thoughts from there mind as they come in contact with a real gun?

...

Do you see the silliness yet?

Your right. I didnt see that. That means Im a mental Superman. I play Battlefield 2, kill kill killl!!!
But yet I have resisted the urge to go get my .41 Magnum and start makin holes in people.

The difference is this. EVERY channel on the TV has gun related violence. If we didnt have guns it'd be a spear or a rock. VIOLENCE is all around us and always will be.

But you dont stumble onto a FOX channel and enjoy an hour of the "Playground Fun Reality show". "And today on Playground Fun.... will suzy impale herself on uncle Joey? Stay tuned! Local news at eleven..."

So Im missing your point with it, be so kind to get me straight with that?

The point is that you used the pretty standard argument... Furries going with other people dressed as furries, Mechas with others dressed as furries... and so on, to show how none of those were illegal IRL.

No problem there... until you decided to use the argument that Ageplayers IRL pick up kids and have sex with them. That is NOT Ageplay at all... and that is the strawman you created to get your point across.


Your argument should have read:

Furries with people dressed as furries... legal.
Mechas with people dressed as Mechas... legal.
Ageplayers with people DRESSED AS KIDS... LEGAL.


You have constantly equated Ageplay with "wanting to screw a kid" and you have no idea how wrong and insulting you are being to ageplayers.

Use that argument with the other "groups" in SL...

Goreans want to own slaves, including sex slaves...
Furries want to bang animals...
Mechas want to fuck machines...
and so on...
You admit yourself that none of those groups really want to do that in real life, yet INSIST that Ageplayers do!

You've no idea what ageplay is, but it isn't stopping you insisting that they must all be wanting to pick a kid up off the street and bang their brains out...


LEARN what it's about before you judge them... or keep being ignorant about it and be extremely insulting.

The choice is yours...

Then you have the furried dressed up like babies mixed in with cyborg attachments!!

What is the difference of a furry and a real life animal as far as the community of furries is concerned? Is there one?

What is the difference of a furry and a real life animal as far as the community of furries is concerned? Is there one?

What difference would that make? Your argument seems to be that role-playing something in SL leads to the desire to do it IRL, is it not? If that's true for age play -> pedophilia, it should also hold true for "War in Jesse, is it upon us" -> gangland warfare. Or Gor sims -> participating in human traficking for sexual purposes.

Why is age play alone what you single out as leading to the need to act something out IRL?