Broadly offending content ~ what is it for *you*?

Fox News is lucky that canids can't sue for defamation.

Perfect Lias! I was able to find the actual Linden Labs statement in all that mess! here is a quote....thanks so much! totally clarified it for me.

"At present, we have no firm evidence of wrongdoing from our own investigations into Wonderland nor from our Abuse Report channel. There's nothing objectionable nor illegal in having a child-like avatar in itself and we must assume innocence until proof of the contrary. That said, Linden Lab is morally opposed to and has zero tolerance for child pornography, simulated or otherwise, within Second Life."

Btw...all those two paragraph articles are rehashing the same one article on sky news...i would not consider any of it hard evidence or empirical conclusive research. more like alot of hype to sell papers.

Also, i REALLLLLY love that LL said "we must assume innocence." Good to know that is their stance without any hard evidence.

yes talarus...i dont know who wrote that article either, but it is in line with my training....here is a key quote...

"So the man who is turned on by the schoolgirl image is NOT a paedophile. He is more likely to be a fetishist who is mainly interested in the traditional gym-slip uniform. In his fantasies the girl will be between 16 and 18 years old and will always be wearing
school uniform - a fantasy girl without clothes will not attract him half so much. "

I would say that sums up the situation in SL....more fetish than anything.

So rest easy...if you like the idea of a schoolgirl...you are NOT a pedophile...giggling.

Yeh, it's the usual stance of the civilised and sane world.

Wow.. two sensationalist news outlets picking up on SOMEONE ELSE'S story and a bunch of blogs. Yeah, that really qualifies as "evidence" in my book... NOT.

An important note that came up in one of them:

"Back in April 2006 Daniel Terdiman wrote a good piece on the problem of age-play in Second life on CNET quoting Jack Balkin professor of law at Yale, who was clear that no laws were being broken because no real children were involved in any stage of the process. The Sky News piece takes a different tack, suggesting that these virtual activities encourage real life actions — a concern that applies across a wide range of anti-social behavior."

Despite the vacuous "gateway drug" argument trotted out (by a media outlet, no less), the important point was that NO LAWS WERE BEING BROKEN BECAUSE NO REAL CHILDREN WERE INVOLVED IN ANY STAGE OF THE PROCESS.

Amazing, innit?

canids can sue - why can't she? According to you and your pals here she can. Would love to see her stand up in an American court and try to prove she is not a virtual pedophile. Popcorn anyone?

.

Thanks, but we already have popped more than we need for your "virtual" sideshow.

Because it's a bloody fox terrier, not a human being or other legal person, you great gump. It's a joke. Do I have to explain a joke to you?

If dogs could talk Fox News would have to change their name because not even a dog would want to be associated with that kind of "journalism".

Sheesh.

Are we at the finale or an intermission? Are there more innocent nude adult avatars with nude child avatars going to post? Stay tuned.

.

im def at intermission....and how did i miss the adult avatars with child avatars posting....damn...i miss all the interesting stuff....

I'd think they'd prefer C(anine) N(ews) N(etwork)

I'm still looking for the word "distributed"... Or, am I supposed to abandon all logic and read my own post with intent to find things between the lines that aren't there? (O.o)

Really... It's welcome to see that you're offended by little naked avatars. Thank you for that contribution. I know what content to ~NOT~ present to you. (^_^)y

But, you really fell off the deep end by referring to anyone here or otherwise as a pedophile and then follow up with sensationalist tabloids to "back up" whatever claim you've had. (=_=)

I have been nothing but honest and factual. Even in the face of controversy. I hope I always have been. My avatar is my "me" and whatever makes me up becomes a part of it. If you want to get rid of what my avatar is, I suggest you make arrangements for the execution of the typist as well. But, under what crime? Under what harm committed? Under what jurisdiction? (=_=)

So, when I say you're affecting your credibility, please understand I'm attempting to be helpful. The accusations you're tossing around are baseless, sensational, emotional, and without merit. Such an argument posed in this fashion is an argument without merit. Consider giving it the unimportance it deserves and find a more productive way to spend your time. (^_^)y

I'm just going to report Liar for slander, harassment, and libel. Every single post she accused people of pedophilia.

I don't mind helping you out. You compared the polaroids you took with today's modern 'sexting' that children do. Sexting is the act of sending out nude pictures of yourself over the internet. So in conclusion you sent out nude polaroids of yourself when you were a child. Comprende?


Bring it down a notch, your over selling it.

You might do better to suggest to ASCIIrider to use his time on less baseless, sensational, emotionally un-merited activities. Sadly, pedophilia exists in Second Life. There is absolutely no reason for an adult avatar to get nude with a child avatar. You can say its fine, you can deny its even happening and you can continue to circle your wagons. But the chaos that occurred in 2007 will occur again - because you people don't get it. But perhaps this time you will.

.

You do that dear.

.

This narrow-minded (can't use the term I want to on here, but its 4 letters)'s monotonous arguments, not even bothering with anything contridictory to her (his?) view, and continual harassment and slander goes back to page 16?

Seriously lias, get a life and a few brain cells. Shut the computer down for a while, read something outside of your narrow minded view and articles repeated from network to network that were obviously just for attention.

I'm reporting you as well.

No, no, actually, it isn't.

I see you have posted in SEVERAL forum threads on this topic. Report away.

.

That may well be true.

There's no reason to have a nude avatar at all, for that matter. Or a Second Life account.

Saying "you haven't provided evidence of X" is not the same as saying "X doesn't happen".

No doubt. Tailgunner Joe Abernathy, a Houston Chronicle reporter lovingly nicknamed in memory of an earlier "Tailgunner Joe", drummed up a lot of bad press about porn on the Internet in the early '90s, and the past couple of decades haven't changed things much.

Classic insinuendo!

This line of argument seems to be leading to an unbanning of sexual ageplay. I don't think that's good at this point (although in hindsight, the banning was probably wrong, too), but if the topic keeps getting rehashed and purposely confused with the totally unrelated topic of pedophilia, eventually LL may think it was similarly confused when it issued the ban.

If someone knows of instances in Second Life of pedophilia--real pedophilia involving real children--then it's not enough to chatter to gossip groups about it; one must go to the RL legal authorities.

If the issue is merely "an adult avatar... nude with a child avatar"--meh. File an abuse report if there's nothing more fun to do. If they're actually having toonsex and there's enough evidence in the chatlog and profiles, maybe G-Team will do something about it.

Or, it being G-Team, they might mistakenly permaban the attendees at Grannie's quilting bee. Either way it adds drama, and one can never get enough of that.

More importantly, what's a gump?



.

Congratulations - you CAN read.

So tell us why none of the common sense is getting through your skull?

But Linden Lab does not agree with you on this - that is why they removed the virtual concentration camp. It obviously was not really killing Jewish People - but the thought of it was so disturbing that it had to go. And to many people adults getting naked with children at a party is very disturbing.

.

Naturalism isn't disturbing to me.

It isn't disturbing to the state of california (the nude beach someone linked to is not only in a state park -but- patrolled by their rangers).

Its disturbing to you.

Whats disturbing to me is your narrowmindedness and willful harassment and slander.