Help regarding age

Whats the current state of protection for players against real life under 18's using adult avatars on the main grid.

Essentially im asking what over 18's do (apart from asking) to protect themselves against criminal/civil liability from a user who is lying about their real age, even though the have an "adult" avatar.

Do we assume that all on the main grid are over 18 unless told specifically otherwise on open chat or it is obvious (which leads to an AR filed etc)

From the TOS:

I think you about summed it up, if someone lied about their age then it is they who have committed the infraction. If you KNOW about it, then you should report it, or at the very least do not do anything that will get you into trouble.

You are entitled to assume that everyone is over 18 unless you have reason to believe that someone may not be. In such a situation I would expect that you could get into trouble if you do anything but AR the suspected minor . . .

Pep ( . . . depending on what else you actually do. )

If Linden Lab does open the main grid to minors then you should assume anyone you meet is under the age of consent until proven otherwise. As it is right now you have one thin leg to stand on should you inadvertantly interact with a minor in an adult way........they are here illegally. But when they are allowed on the grid, that flimsy leg is gone and you are wide open to all sorts of potential legal issues.

Yes i read that, Obviously if the player is told that its an under 18 and continues adult conversations then it would be a problem

But in practice, would that safeguard prevent a player being arrested for instance if they chose to chat about topics that could be regarded as inappropriate, even though the under 18 player shouldnt be there in the first place?

It opens up a potential landmine of liability

Thank you thats what i thought

Do we have to have this thread everyday?

Can we get a mod to sticky one of them so new people don't keep posting it 7 days a week?

Sorry kitty, i couldnt really find a definative answer before. But yes now a sticky is a good option

i always ask peoples age if things are heading to a certain direction or if i feel they are too young acting..i have timestamp and date on..i figure the more lies i have recorded if they are lying only adds to the strength of that leg..let alone if i doubt they are telling the truth it's not going any farther than idel chitty chat anyways..

If they make the mistake of telling me they are younger or snuk on here..they have just been busted and will be getting AR'd..

Sorry you are tired of reading this subject.......it is a potential legal issue for many people. It's sort of important. And, tell the truth.....how many times do you skip reading stickies? Most of the time, I'm sure.

Don't read the thread if it bores you.

Wrong.

In the US, it is a strict liability crime to have sex with a minor or sell alcohol to a minor. They can lie, use fake ID, even use real ID they falsely gained (by lying to the government office to get it)...

- If they are 17 and 364 days old, you are still -criminally- liable - often for felony statutory rape.

Likewise for child pornography - which will occur if you cam with them and they are underage but you don't know it and they lie about it. That can also be a problem if they -are- adult in their country but not in yours (if you're in the US) - you will still be criminally liable.

Cybering on the other hand - text chatting, might just be 'lewd and lascivious acts with a minor. That might be strict liability, or it might require intent or negligence.

Intentionally avoiding checking on someone's age would be willful blindness - and would put you right back in intent land... So for any of the lesser crimes that might require intent rather than just strict liability, you couldn't get out of it by saying you didn't know -if- "you should have checked."

No I agree the thread is very important. After all, everytime a teen sneaks into the adult Grid, there is a potential for a DA and a nightline crew to follow behind them and land countless residents in jail... That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't a real risk - and if teens gain easier access, the potential likely will become a reality for somebody.

I just don't see why we have to report it from page 1 as a new thread all over again every day or few days.

From yesterday:
/327/ab/331699/1.html

And using search will find you plenty more. Same topic, slightly different wording each time.

It ups your post count.

Recent changes took most of the steam out of ban line, ad farm and traffic bot bickering, so the age stuff has to work that much harder! Damn, I can't even remember the last time stipends were late.

Didn't they replace the "late stipend" feature with "mysterious group liabilities"?

Multi-Rubbish. First the age of consent varies from 16 to 18 in the US. Second many if not most states either require that it be knowingly or else have exceptions that amount to the same thing.

For example, in Indiana:


Third, and perhaps the most blatant mistake of all, these crimes apply to physical contact, not roleplaying.



Again, rubbish. The US child pornography laws require that the image be indistinguishable from a RL image. SL graphics don't count.

You may be confused by another recent posting, concerning a case involving a guilty plea. However, the charges in question were obscenity, not child pornography, and the issues are very different.


They might be corrupting the morals or disseminating harmful information, but they're not lewd and lascivious acts. Again, those require physical contact.

There's enough confusion out there by people spreading misinformation, but this takes the cake. If you're going to start throwing around legal terms such as "strict liability", then start by learning to research your statements before posting them.

Actually, U.S. law does not cover chat, currently. That is why to make an arrest, there must be a real life meeting arranged and acted upon. I am not saying that as an editorial comment but only to give a minor correction (no pun intended.)

I'm not sure this is technically true, but I understand what you're saying.

In the cases to which you're referring, the charges are typically solicitation for sex with a minor, and yes, they require a meeting. Those are the ones that prosecutors and police care about, because they involve people who actually do want to have sex with kids.

However, chat is communication, just like any other. It can be subject to obscenity laws and possibly laws concerning distributing harmful material to minors. Obscenity laws tend to focus on commercial distribution, so it's less likely that you'll see cases involving chat. I don't know whether federal obscenity laws could be applied to SL chat, nor have I researched any state laws. It seems highly unlikely any prosecutor would go after something like this, unless there were other issues involved, and there are obvious first amendment issues, but I'd hate to have people think there's absolutely no risk.

Current policy >>

PG/Mature: Don't ask, don't tell. Lie about your age while signing up. (=_=)

Adult: Don't ask, don't tell. Steal daddy's credit card while signing up. (=_=)

Reveal your real age in chat: Teh Linden Banxorz on ur buttz. (^_^)y

The key words are "Knowingly" and "Reasonable doubt". As long as there's a reasonable doubt that you're knowingly pixek-bonking an underager, the liability is off your shoulders. (^_^)y

Kidd: it IS true. You cannot be arrested for chatting online.

If that were the case it would make a lot of officers' jobs a lot easier!

No, it wouldn't, and I think that may be the confusion.

It's much, much more difficult to prove the sorts of obscenity charges that might apply in such a case, which is why it's not even on the radar screen of the officers. And I'm not suggesting that people should panic over it. As a practical matter, there are all sorts of questions such as reasonable expectation of privacy, how the law in question defines "distribution" or "furnishing", as well as the earlier questions about knowing whether the true age of the recipient.

But take a look at the Fletcher case (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202136233549), where a woman was arrested for posting text-only stories on a web site. Note that the issue is whether something that's text-only can be considered obscenity. It doesn't matter whether it was a web site, or paper, or chat. The issue of chat might come into play as far as "distribution" is concerned, which means private chat and group chat might be different, but the mere point of it being chat doesn't create any immunity.

Why continue to worry about things you have no control over?


Seems rather time consuming not to mention really stupid to do so.

All the "legal" talk aside, there is the basic problem that, if minors are permitted by LL to be on the main grid, you are at risk of facing charges brought forth by an eager Deputy DA or DA should Mommy or Daddy present chat logs to them. You have not one leg to stand on when you know that anyone you chat with is possibly a minor. You are facing a situation where, at the very least, that is going to be expensive. You must defend yourself should that happen.......well, I guess you don't have to, but you'd a fool not to. All it takes is a chat log, a copy of the ToS, and a complaint presented to the right judge and everything you do on the internet is wide open to investigation. And even if the charges never lead to a conviction, you are tainted for life. Spout all that legal stuff you want.........you will have a big problem. All that has to be presented is "just cause" to get that ball rolling. And with the legal system we have in the US that is incrediably easy to do.

I would suggest you don't rely on that "technically, you are incorrect or correct" crap. You could still find your butt with a heap of problems. Linden Lab is protecting itself as much as they can.......you should do the same.

But, you do have control. Hiding from it is not excercising that control.