Non sexual nudety and child avatars

I personally got banhammered for [sexual] ageplay on two accounts, in adult avatars, in a PG activity, on a PG region. Who assumed what at that time? (=_=)

You don't get banned for asking, either. And in asking, you always might find there's nothing to get banhammered for anyway.

People don't know it because it's false.

There is no federal offense in the U.S. from depicting a cartoon child in proximity to a sexual situation. Otherwise Family Guy, Moral Orel (and probably some other shows) would be off the air. There may or may not be in other countries. (Oh, wait, Moral Orel is about to be off the air

There is no federal offense in the U.S. from depicting a live 16 year old, using an over 18 actor, in a sexual situation. Otherwise Desperate Housewives would be off the air.

These may be violations of the SL standards. However, that's not what this thread is about.

Full agreement with you there.



QFT. I find it revealing that it is typically the people who argue the loudest against the concept of young nudity to be the same ones who never fail to allude to or directly mention those other discussions whenever the chance arises. And then I think of the maxim about "whatever you dislike the most about others is, in fact, what you dislike about yourself but are unwilling to admit that you share that flaw".



In the USA, it's a notion which was emphasized by the more fundamentalist factions of the Christian church over the last 100-200 years, and probably represents (along with the surrounding issues) the best proof available that morality is relative, as it changes dramatically over time. I also find it interesting that as large numbers of people leave Christianity, and even religion all-together, they still cling desperately to the stupidest notions of same.

OMG! I was just flipping through channels on the TV and just saw a topless little girl (implied full nudity) in a bathtub in a bubble bath commercial. And...horrors....there was a naked little boy in the same tub with her. At one point, he even...brace yourselves...touched her (shoulder).

The channel? Cartoon Network.

I'm sure Second Life doesn't want to be the first company to be sued or fined or sent to jail for engendering virtual child porn. This isn't real life, it isn't a nudist colony per your other example, it is a computer game. Within which, people can buy both a nude depiction of a child in cartoon form and a sex gen HUD. Do the math.

The PROTECT act did a lot more towards stopping virtual child porn, and people are being prosecuted for posting stories on the internet...If people can't see why SL might be leaping over backwards to cooperate and prevent any abuse of the game in that direction, they're being naive or something else I don't want to say.

I'm trying to track down the information on a computer game that was banned, which depicted children having sex with adults - it wasn't photographs or even altered ones it was animation. Until then, here's something to read between the lines on:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn

An article about a German man and this topic:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199500710

LL's policy is quoted in the article. Since LL is worldwide, even if the law hasn't yet caught up in America it seems a moot point.

Why wouldn't Adobe (which sells Photoshop) or Smith Micro (which sells Poser) show the same fears?


That's absurdly far-fetched. It's like arguing against digital cameras because they could be used to produce child porn. There are specific situations in which LL may have legitimate concerns, mostly in countries other than the US, but extrapolating it this way is just bad math.


The PROTECT act "bans virtual child pornography, which it describes as a 'digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.' (quoted from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=11865, which is linked directly from the link you posted). It is the "indistinguishable" criterion that was inserted to fix the constitutional problem with CPPA. It also makes it clear that it doesn't apply to SL images, at least not with current technology.


If "look before you leap" is good advice, then "look before you leap over backwards" is even better advice.

In other words, no one is objecting to LL's rational actions to stay both within the law and broadly accepted notions of decency. But there are legitimate objections to knee-jerk reactions, inconsistent statements and guidelines, unannounced reversals on interpretation of policy, taking unilateral action without warning and without a fair appeal process, and - as is the case in this thread - imposing a notion of decency that is far from broadly-accepted within the US, let alone the rest of the world.


I look forward to seeing this information.

Until then, before reading between the lines in that article, make sure to read the part that says "On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court struck down both provisions at issue in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition." (in reference to the section of CPPA quoted earlier in the article).

You seem to have missed the meat of the point to pick the bones.

I know there were points on both sides of the issue on my first link, which was one reason I used that link. I had been accused of 'bias' - as if there is two sides to the issue of whether simulated child porn is okay?

I think LL's prudence on the issue is wise.

(after a pause) Okay, to answer your point here:



You don't see that it isn't about what CAN be created in SL but what is not only being created but sold. If LL leases the virtual land to a shop selling part of the equation...It seems obvious to me that may be a concern. Why else do you suppose they would ask those shops to stop selling nude child avatar skins??

This isn't an art program, (or a digital camera per your other example - which is an inert item - that LL has nothing to do with) it is a game and a virtual world which leases virtual land to virtual shops selling usable items.



Never heard of photoskinning? (Even just the face)

Point of order: the skins themselves were not barred: simply the pictures on the wall. The issue, as best as can be surmised, is the presence of nipples visible on the avatars in the vendor images alone.

Porn isn't the subject here. I did the math, and this thread is about NON SEXUAL NUDITY. There are shopping malls where at one store you can buy a vibrator, and across the mall you can buy a princess tutu for your 3 year old. Is it the mall's problem that the stores are in the same building? (>_< *clicks heels* Porn isn't the subject here. Porn isn't the subject here. Porn isn't the subject here. (>_< Okay, fine, child porn is illegal... I'm sure we KNEW that 100 threads ago. But, porn isn't the subject here. (>_<

People are mental.

It's a practiced art. =^-^=

You're making no sense here.

As has already been said, nude SL child avatars aren't illegal in the US.

Selling isn't relevant. Mere possession of child porn is illegal in the US. Giving it away is illegal.

As for asking someone to stop selling nude child avatar skins, there's no such thing and that's not what they did. Any skin will fit any size avatar. The default, no-public-hair skin is just as much a child skin as any other might be. Nor did they ask the seller to stop selling. What they did was to remove a vendor because it had a picture that (I'm inferring) was of a girl wearing panties but no top. Why did they do? The best I can come up with is a knee-jerk reaction by a one or a handful of employees based upon a parochial view of proper dress for a child, without regard to the actual wording of the anti-sexual ageplay policy.


And that's relevant because?

I'm guessing that the point you're really trying to make is that they own and operate the servers. Leasing or selling isn't really relevant. What's relevant is that they can't allow their equipment to be used for illegal purposes. Which isn't the case here.

Pffffft.... This is America!! We dont think! We just accept any drivel the media feeds us.

Which seems to be a correct inferring. Best i've been able to nail down so far is that there were nipples showing on the vendor. That they were pulled goes opposite of what LL's GTeam has said before about child avatar nudity (that it would depend on context, as well as the vendors in question being previously reviewed and okayed) seems to be irrelevant at this point, as it has also been indicated that there has been no policy change and that always was the case. :-/

Interesting. Am I to understand, their logic then is that the previous decision allowing the vendor pictures was incorrect and not reflective of policy? And therefore the precedent set by the decision is nullified?

That does bother me. I do not care if LL changes their policy, and I will abide by those changes as they are announced. I'm not a trouble-stirrer. But how am I able to stay on the good side of the rules when those changes aren't announced? When LL arbitrarily decides that things are going to be THIS way, and then insists that things actually have "always" been this way, and any previous LL decisions that differ with that interpretation are hereby considered simply "wrong" - that's cheating. As a kid av, I've always been of the opinion (even though a vast, vast number of my peers disagrees pointedly) that LL doesn't really care about kid avs, and only makes the rules they make because they feel forced to - for legal or publicity issues. And I've never borne any ill will for those rules, even when they might make things inconvenient for me. But if this latest event is the way they're going to be making changes from now on, it almost makes me feel like they're intentionally and specifically trying to inconvenience and frustrate kid avs right off the grid.

So what now? At CX's pool parties I dressed for swimming. Does this mean now I can't go to a party like that wearing just swim trunks, because my skin has nipples? Or what....I'll be banned? Perhaps the other people nearby too, simply for being nearby? That's ridiculous. It's the most infantile thing I've ever heard.

No, that decision was correct. The current decision is correct as well. There has been no change in policy.

(Yes, I know this doesn't make sense)

Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Report to the town square for the 5-minutes hate.

"And yet the past, though of its nature unalterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality Control,' they called it; in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'"

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

A bit hyperbolic. As much as I like being on Second Life, and being who I am on Second Life, the fact will always remain that I am here because, and only for as long as, I choose to be here. Having to live with LL's decisions is akin to having to live with buying brown and silver paper whenever I want to eat a Hershey bar.

Of course that doesn't mean I can't complain or try to convince Hershey to change the color of the wrapper; but I'm not prepared to draw a reference to "1984".

My feelings as well. I complied with the actual, published TOS and CS. I did even more research and complied with LL's public statements which clarified the vapor-speak of the CS. I noted things that I saw in-world and knew that LL had seen and allowed.

For my efforts, I get a black mark against my account. And my appeal was handled by the same person who made the original decision which caused me to file an appeal...they didn't even pretend to handle it fairly, which would be easy enough.

But I think you're right on one count. They want the child avs gone. Just gone. LL is still hanging on to their cherished idea that SL is a killer application for corporate meetings and voice conferencing. And, obviously, the reason the corporations aren't flocking to the awesome in-world meeting and conferencing capabilities has nothing to do with Skype or the fact that few businesses will spring for a desktop for employees that can handle running SL....it's because child avs are scaring the corporations away.

They have a teen.secondlife.com.

Maybe they need a corp.secondlife.com, and a "business grid".

Maybe even restricted access sims based on countries with sticks up their butts over digital content. That way, those of us who believe we have freedom of speech can express it while the remainder of the restricted multitude can 'enjoy' their cut-and-dry regulated lifestyle. (=_=)

"[22:32] ** **: to see people running in terror from someone so small and cheerful is a beautiful thing" ... =^-^=