Underage Avatar and Sex

File a Jira asking LL to add "Dragaeran ageplay" to the list of AR reasons, then file the AR in that category after it's implemented.

Of course, that 90 yo Dragaeran could die of old age before that happens.

Here's a link to a Linden Lab blog post on the subject: http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/11/13/clarification-of-policy-disallowing-ageplay/.

Actually that's not very specific at all (ususal LL)

If one lived in a state where the age of consent was 16 then I would probably expect that person to not even be aware that in Ca it is 18 or that it may even matter to them.

If LL wants to peg it to a specific age then they better do so, otherwise, why expect anyone to think it was anything other than what their local community standards deemed it was?

I, for one, completely quit asserting an age for my avatar. I'm short, middle, tall in height. People have seen my short avatar as an imp/adult/dwarf... People have seen my tall avatar as teen/kid/jailbait. (>_<

The rule for [sexual]ageplay has never been clearly documented. Sure, it was blogged about, but as a historical and canonical document of a rule or regulation... Nothing exists. (>_<

Add to that... What was acceptable half a year ago will get you suspended today. What you can get away with today may surely be bannable tomorrow. I'm afraid it only takes a single complaint at the moment. (>_<

Really... Like the national campaign against masturbation... This should really get the unimportance it deserves and everyone should just lighten up. Particularly our rule makers. (^_^)

Really, if they do anything at all, document the thing. (>_<

The TOS/CS pages should be in Wiki format and only edited within the lab and not without committee or conference. LL needs to realize that it's affecting what are commonly daily events for over sixty thousand people. Keeping us all informed of what we can and cannot do should be a pretty high priority. (=_=)y

/me looks for a marking on this thread's packaging to make sure it's Kosher.

The information you want would be found in this SL Blog entry. It is not within the published Terms of Service nor the Community Standards

http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/11/13/clarification-of-policy-disallowing-ageplay/

Note that "Underage" in this instances means "of a younger age than would be allowed on the main grid." Ergo, 17 would indeed be considered underage.

Mari
(Who, once again, made sure tyo put on the hard hat before climbing into the fray)

1. Turn the hose on them.
2. Eject and ban them om your land.
3. Get on with your SL.

Another save the children thread...sigh.

/me brings in the popcorn cart



just in case

AR both parties. If you know their RL identity, you might want to let the authorities local to those creeps area that they're participating in creating child porn.

http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/11/13/clarification-of-policy-disallowing-ageplay/#more-1379

What makes child pornography suddenly OK?

AFAICT, no state allows minors (those under 1 to be the subject of pornography, regardless of the age of consent. Age of legal majority is the magic number here.

I wouldn't have approached them directly. Banhammer off your land, AR, and let them sit and spin.

In this scenario, the person making the mistake would have had to have failed to read the terms before committing themselves to a binding legal contract. Section 7.1 of the ToS makes it pretty clear what rulebook we're playing by.

But the person under 18 is not the SUBJECT of the porn: they are the creator of what you are suggesting is porn (cartoon puppets that look like adults doing something). So it's not child pornography in any legal sense, whatever it is.

This thread of course is a troll; the person asking "How do I contact a Linden?",
just to see how ridiculous he can get.

The law doesn't exactly have grey area when it comes to child porn. Both parties are both creating and receiving the child porn in this case.

Yep so lets all jump on the torches and pitchforks hunting everyon on the main grid who might be even 17 and 11 months old.
17 is so close to 18 who really cares, there are probably 19yo's that would suffer negative effects from vittual sex too, what are you doing to protect them?
Get a life, stop interfering with others, no wonder the world is grinding to a halt under red tape fanatics. you don't get XP for ARing people................

wasnt the SL age stated as 17, not the RL age...... if so in any case, dont be LL police, use common sense.... both adults, ones SL RP age was 17.... get over it... I been a kid av for years and still find this whole thread to be somewhat odd... as far as I can see its more witch hunting.... get over it

please stop assuming.

No assumption was made. Please read the thread so you have all the facts presented so far as well. All that matters in this case is what applies in California, as everybody who uses SL legally agreed to this in the TOS (section 7.1). California does not permit pornography containing images of minors engaging in sex, period.

I have read it, have you? You're assuming the OP was telling the complete truth

Yes. The fact is there was an underage avatar engaging sexual conduct. Given that SL has to render this into an image, child pornography was created, whether or not anybody took a snapshot.

Either way, LL's pretty clear on the issue: NOT allowed. If you had read the thread, you'd have found the blog post that very clearly spells this out.

and you're assuming this is all the truth. I was here when the blog came out on it.

No disagreement. The issue, though, is that no actual children are being depicted. These are digital representations, yes, but not actual children, which makes the question of legality under California law largely irrelevant. To LLs credit, they have to date only said that this behavior *might* be illegal.

They have, nevertheless, made it clear that such actions are not allowed on the Second Life service regardless of the specific RL legality. Depicting sexual activity with an underage (in this case, younger than MG age) avatar is a violation of the terms of service of Second Life.

Mari

You might want to be aware that you're presenting a non-sequitor that suggests that you have something to hide.

1. Facts presented in thread explaining a situation that clearly violates the community standard.
2. ?
3. Somehow Toy comes to the conclusion that the event is somehow acceptable because, theoretically, it might not have happened.

One can't help but come to the conclusion that you're defending child pornography for ulterior motives.

Which would make it breach of contract or computer trespass at best, still not legal. Breach of contract because it violates the ToS. Computer tresspass if they're banned and come back before the ban is lifted (and as Mitnick knows, this will land you in Federal PMITA Prison).