So why are kids on Zindra?

So we have to all plant flags with illicit content on them on our front lawns to keep the child avatars out that like to RP as small children wandering around in Adult Content Areas. Like garlic for vampires.

You now say wall-to-wall porn in Zindra will keep child avatars out - and since there is nothing forbidding them from walking down Linden roads in Zindra in a wall-to-wall porn Adult Content area - I do not agree with you. That's like asking a AdFarmer real nice not to block your view with advertisements. We see how that worked out. Linden Lab had to step in and make it clear to the Adfarmer that their behavior was not acceptable- as LL will need to do for these child avatar people.

Err...
Child avatars define theM!
Are they the 5- 6 year old avies?
Or the young adults ( teen) avies?


... I tried to approach somebody from this forum in IM.
But he/she wouldnt elaborate her/his opinion with me...

so I am asking here.

You don't have to have actual children to have child pornography.

Maybe so, if you actually have a fantasy about that, but even if you do it's not illegal and it's not against the ToS... and I dare say I'll find some of the fantasies people act out in Zindra a good deal more disturbing than that. I know I find some of the fantasies people act out in mature areas right now kinds disturbing. If I wanted to play somewhere I'd never find anything disturbing going on I'd play... Far Realms or Puzzle Pirates or something.

On the other hand walking across a PG street between a PG furniture store and a PG residence isn't any kind of "fantasy", it's just "going home after shopping". Whether there's A, R, X, or H-rated content elsewhere in the sim out of clear sight of the kid toon is irrelevant.

You're making stuff up again. The incidents we're talking about didn't involve any child avatars entering areas containing adult content or activities.

The phrase "Adult Linden Land" is another term you're making up to muddy the waters.

I have received plenty of messages about this topic from within SL. Many feel very strongly about this issue, but pretty much all of them were polite in their discourse.

You Proxima, have bothered me with your alts, double posted in this thread, and shown a general lack of understanding concerning the issues at hand. You're a child player and you have a vested interest in protecting your play. I understand this and I have no interest in seeing your play prohibited by Second Life. I am simply interested in preventing the depiction of children in sexualized situations. As I told you in world, I will not debate this with you further. I have muted your accounts in world and will do the same here on the forums.





Argent tell us what you find more disturbing than child pornography? Maybe a top 10 list of perversions and how you rank them would be nice.

Uh... Yes you do. See, there's a CHILD in "child pornography". (O.o)

You can do that, if you want to be childish and immature. There's no rules against childish and immature activities in adult-rated sims (though perhaps there should be *).

It will keep them out of the areas containing porn, yes. They'll still be allowed in the infohubs.

Only a Nazi** would compare child avatars with adfarmers.

* This is a joke.

** This is also a joke.

2nds this




confess lias, you're still mad about Bear aren't you?

The depiction of child pornography does not require actual children. You cannot be this dense.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The scene described did not contain any child pornography. It contains dark Dickensian overtones of child abuse and Victorian child labor and welfare practices, and that's certainly dark enough, but not pornography.

Maybe you missed it. At the risk of repeating myself:

See... You need to use a CHILD to create PORNOGRAPHY in order to have child pornography. If no children are involved and the content isn't pornographic then it's a simple case of missing link in logic. (=_=)

Last I checked, Barnes&Noble, Waldenbooks, and Amazon.com are still in business selling items that fit child pornography in your own opinion, but, not according to law and not according to anything that would diminish their legitimacy as media retailers. (^_^)

That said: Child + Pornography = child pornography. If either is missing, things simply don't add up. (=_=)

To finish, there are no children here. (^_^)y

YAY! I declare the first corollary of Goodwin's law has been enacted. We can all go back to having cartoon sex.

I did not miss anything. I see that Linden Land, clearly marked Adult can be used to AR adults content avatars in Zindra. I already stated that. And I said that is a mixed message sent out by Linden Lab and it needs to be fixed. And you do not agree with what I said. Now we are both on the same page again.
The Mosh Island Infohub parcel is owned by Linden Lab. The parcel is 17,552 Meters. A representative of Linden Lab went through the steps to click the ABOUT LAND tab, OPTIONS and then the ANY CATEGORY drop-down box and they knowingly chose to set that Linden owned parcel as ADULT rated. You all keep saying the parcel rating supercedes the continent rating - well there it is (waiting for new excuse why child avatars are knowingly going to a parcel marked Adult)
In your little made-up reality I assume you would feel it was ok for child avatars to go dance with adults on Adult Rated parcels as long as everyone is dressed (or with you, not dressed) and no Adult content was in sight. And this is where LL needs to step in and make sure you understand that Adult Content providers do NOT want to interact with child avatars on Adult marked areas.

I said unlikely to be wall to wall porn, and that's a reasonable assumption. True, we'll have to see who actually gets moved in, but if were to place a bet with the over/under on Adult content in Zindra being 100%, I'm going with under.

Don't let the smoke and mirrors get in your way.



I already replied to your quoted post. You're simply wrong here. The depiction of a child in a sexualized situation whether real or not can be considered child pornography.

Virtual child avatar porn wrong.

Virtual torture/killing/mutilation of virtual children avatars is a-okay.

Hehe.


*Waits for the usually predictable gang-bang of accusations because of said comment, because by the logic of the comment above, I expect logic like 'you must be gay if you're not anti-homosexual'*

No it does not. It takes depictions of children to do that. Try making a Machinima movie with child sex avatars in it. See how that is received.

Woah.
Calling me an ageplayer?
That kinda shocks me.
I could post our IM chat here, to show people I was nothing but poilite and friendy, but I wont.
Just want people to make clear I dont do ageplay, and that I am against it.

I DO have a child avatar and I DO RP with them at Hogwarts.
The sim clearly states sex is forbidden. I am not 20+ iRL, so I refuse to make an avie that looks like a 40 year old guy. Aand as for my alt.. I was logged in on my alt in SL, on the forum with my main. I dont think it was really needed to bring my main online to chat to you.

Anyway, again, Its sad and weak you refuse to elaborate your opinion.
Muting is your decision of course, but its a weak one.

I am against children involved in sexual situations, i agree with you.
But everybody is AGE verified.
The children we have ARE pixels and ARE adults irl.

There was no sexualized content described in the message I was responding to. Quoting someone else's message to try and make it look like I was responding to something else is just low.

It "can be considered", but, it's not. Just like shooting a gun in a video game can be considered a danger to society, but, it's not. Just like writing a song called "Cop Killer" can be considered malicious intent, but, it's not. (=_=)

Fantasy | Reality
^^ Find the line. (^_^)y

(the caps are mine to highlight certain points that certain people are glossing over.)

For the purposes of this law, ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT includes commercial sex with anyone under 18, and non-commercial sex with persons under 16 when there is at least a four-year age difference or the person is under 12 years of age. Previous US law was less strict, only punishing those having sex either in contravention of local laws OR in commerce (prostitution); but did not prohibit non-commercial sex with, for example, a 14 year-old if such sex was legal in the foreign territory.

The PROTECT Act mandated that the United States Attorney General promulgate new regulations to enforce the 2257 record keeping regulation, colloquially known as the '2257 Regulations'. The Free Speech Coalition has filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice claiming the 2257 Regulations are unconstitutional.

The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations DEPICTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. ******Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002.***** However, the provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law.

The act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 30, 2003.[8]

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly:

(hold on to your hypocritical moral high ground there)

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) AN OBSCENE VISUAL DEPICTION OF A MINOR ENGAGING IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT; or (ii) A VISUAL DEPICTION OF AN ACTUAL MINOR ENGAGING IN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT.

now before you go and get the Miller Test and pervert that to fit into your lies:

*The Miller Test:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.*

while i do not believe the Miller Test should be used in the judgment of what is offensive, as this thread can attest to why, none of this law falls into the ballyhoo of reasoning you try to apply to this or any other situation. ESPECIALLY Zindra.


get your facts right, and get on with your secondlife.

I don't believe the monorail station in Mosh is actually an infohub. It's not marked as such, and if the no naughty business signs present in other Adult infohubs are present, they are well hidden.

The only infohubs in Adult regions I'm aware of are Arapaima and Ortiz.

I'm not sure ARs for nudity in Mosh would hold up. If I played a child avatar, I sure wouldn't be going to Mosh to AR anyone for indecent behavior.

Yes this did need to be posted. It was discussed quite a few pages back though.

Moesha we disagree on the interpretation of the law. I do feel that it is applicable to this situation.