Help regarding age

Kidd: I was joking, but the fact remains that it isn't illegal to chat with a minor even in 'naughty' ways online. Whether it should or shouldn't be opens the thread up to all sorts of other points, so I was trying to avoid that aspect of it.

Just watch 'to catch a predator' and how tricky it is to arrest them. they have to get out of the car, and go in, and act on the parameters of the meeting. The person they are actually meeting is not a minor but if they think it is, and express intent to carry out illegal activity with them, they're arrested. Even then it all has to hold up in a court of law.

Was trying to help the OP in their worry about possibly talking to someone in SL he did not even know was a minor. My point is that even if you DO 'know' it is a minor, as the law currently stands for U.S. citizens, it isn't illegal. I think part of the reason is that you never can really 'know' and it wouldn't hold up in court.

I think as the internet's existence itself goes on, those laws will change. But he's talking about now.

That was not a mistake, that was you not reading my full post or otherwise misreading it.

I never said it applied to roleplay.

Here's a statutory scheme that is more common than your Indiana one:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269

- Where it is, as it is in common law, strict liability:
http://www.lawstudysystems.com/node/184



Again you misread me. My example here regarding camming with a person - which is RL video...


As chatting does not yet have a specific set of statutes around it, DAs are free to pick and choose anything they can get past a judge, and judge's, especially in the realm os sex crimes with minors, are inclined to be DA favorable.

Whether they construe chatting to be akin to a physical act or moral corruption - the result is still potential criminal liability.

You didn't need to, roleplay was the subject of the thread. If you intended to change context to RL physical contact, you should have been explicit. Though I can't imagine why you'd even think that relevant to the question that was asked.


An ironic choice. Some more searching turned up a 1964 case, People v. Hernandez, in which a California court ruled that statutory rape wasn't strict liability. I haven't found anything recent indicating that it's changed in CA. There are other states that have made it explicit in their laws and would provide a better example.

Regardless, it varies from state to state. Generalizing by saying "In the US, it is a strict liability crime ..." is at best misleading.


In SL, camming means moving your viewer camera position around. At least that's the usage I'm familiar with, with webcam being used for network video. Computer neologisms bite us all, which is a good reason to avoid them when possible, and be extra clear otherwise. I'll grant that this is relevant to the base note, but still seems odd. What's the point of spending all that time and L$ to buy a great skin, along with an unrealistically impressive body and fabulous clothes if you're going to turn around and reveal your RL self?

(Aside, if anyone is really interested in this subject, check out http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/53/carpenter.pdf, which is specifically about statutory rape and strict liability. It's not directly relevant to the typical SL stuff, though.)

Add to that... There were cases where the captured potential molester had all charges dropped because the cases were mis-handled for the sake of publicity of the show. (>_<

Some people see SL only as a means to meet and/or see and/or phone chat with the people BEHIND the avs. And those types generally could care less about all of the SL trappings.

Aren't those people going to be fondling Matty Bear on New Lively?

So, all you legal experts, what happens when Suzie 13 is caught "roleplaying" with Sam 57 and Mommy gets mad? You think DA Ambious is going to care one bit about legal precedence that has yet to be established about cybersex when he can simply call up the local CNN affiate office? It's a win win for him. It's a nightmare for Sam 57.

Turn it around a little, especially since the recent rash of adult females seducing minor males. Johnny 15 (you know, the age when hormones really get in gear) is caught with Mary 35.

It matters not what the law is or should be.....it matters what the adult who is not aware of the legality of his/her actions are. It's the legal battle that will be fought dispite it's merit. It will have to be taken care of..............and it won't be pleasant.

That is the point of this thread as I read it.

That is the kinds of thing a DA better care about if he likes his job.

I think the first person arrested for Cybering a underage player in Second Life would make the news,

Fox news anyway.

Since it hasn't happened yet, carry on getting your freak on.

Try to make sure they are in your age range, which shouldn't be hard if you .. you know .. chat with them about non sexual things first.

Also you may want to get in the habit of doing this stuff on Adult land, with the new rules and all ..

Actually that is a pretty good point. Underage have been here for a long time. Blue has told a couple of amusing underage tales. Like the guy that reported someone for being underage, only to find out that his SL girlfriend was 15 or 16(I forgot which).

Same thing that happened when it happened in AOL chat, Yahoo chat, MSN chat...How long since all this began happening? Over a decade?

Even if Suzie ran off to meet him there might not be anything Mom could do until police believed it.

What we think ought to happen and what happens isn't necessarily the same thing.

Well definitely the RL meeting thing does lead to problems -- there is that show on MSNBC or whatever channel.

Course those weirdos Think they are going to be meeting a RL underage girl, that is why they are there. Quite a bit different than what the OP is describing.

Colette - yes, and I said the same thing in my earlier posts in this thread.

Someone was saying that a laywer would get laws changed if a mother found out her teen had been having naughty chat with an adult, as if it were something new. My reply to that was it probably would've happened in all those other cases over the past decade. Many of those went beyond chat, even. And the laws are still dragging behind.

Yes of course it's different legally if there is an in person meeting. I even cited the same tv show you did.

Yes you would think with this high profile this subject gets, the minute they start arresting people for just cybering minors in chat rooms (SL included) we will hear about it.

It isn't the law at this time. Period.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be. But the legal argument would have to be very clever. Also imagine the first time someone was falsely accused of this. I'd think proving this would be fairly difficult.

But there are a lot of people who wish it were illegal. I mean I think we all agree on that one, that it should not happen.

Becomes a quandry though

What is worse, arresting people for their thoughts ?(chatting with someone on a computer)

Or failing to protect a minor from exposure to sexually themed communication with an adult?

They both seem like bad things to do.

The best solution is likely for parents to stop their children (somehow) from being exposed to this.

After all its not LL's responsibility if a 15 year old signs up for Second Life, it is that 15 year old's parents - Although it is still the 15 year old's "fault".

How is a parent stupid enough to let their kids on the net without supervision going to figure out how to get a copy of the log, let alone a picture to show the police?

And how far will they push it, when the media starts coming after them for allowing their kids unsupervised net access? They don't have the excuse that they didn't know there was an child involved.

What will Fox News put on the air to try to convince their audience that the poor SL player should have figured out that the person typing those sexy lines was underage?

Yes.



I am not 100% on this but pretty sure a minor cannot be legally held to a contract. May be another reason users of SL must be over 18. I'm guessing. How does the signup for SL Teen work, I wonder?

it doesnt.

from what i heard and saw on jira, for TSL signup you need a paypal account... which you can't get under legal age.
catch22, problem avoided.

My daughter has turned 13 now and I have encouraged her on the computer since she was 3 years old. A couple of times in the last month I have gone upstairs to see her and she has closed the browser when I walked into the room. I "trust" my daughter, but I also love her enough that I put in the program so that I can see what she sees on her screen from my computer whenever I want now. Everything has been innocent and within normal teen curiosity parameters. I understand teens do like their privacy and that is evidently why she closed the browser. BUT, even thou I will check infrequently, the network admin software is staying on her computer.

Questions about the law depend on where you live.

If Sam is a Brit, he doesn't have much to worry about, since the two offences he could have committed -- causing a minor to engage in an indecent act or to view indecent images -- require the prosecution to prove, if there is any dispute about this, that he did not reasonably believe the minor in question was over 18.

So, assuming Suzie's mother didn't discover her daughter's chat logs in which Suzie informs Sam 57 of her real age and he carries on regardless, CPS Reviewing Lawyer Half-Way-Competent is very unlikely to approve the file for prosecution even if the police bother to put it foward for possible prosecution, and, even if CPS Reviewing Lawyer Completely Useless is dealing with the matter, HH Judge Very Annoyed At Having The Court's Time Wasted is going to put his foot through it well before the matter gets anywhere near having a trial date.

Points about Linden Labs being an American company aren't particularly relevant here -- Sam is, or isn't, going to be prosecuted by the relevant authorities where he lives, not where Linden Labs are based, so Sam had better inform himself of the law where he happens to be, whether that's the USA, UK, Japan, Brasil or wherever, and behave accordingly.

That (as is evident from your putting "trust" in quotes) means you *don't* trust your daughter and you are almost certain to lose *her* trust when she finds out you have been monitoring her in secret.

Pep (I simply told my kids that I was remotely monitoring their usage - when I wasn't. )

Loose her trust? No I will not, as we have a great relationship. I am also not the type of parent that hands a child one of our ages most powerful tools, for good or bad, and lets them run free with it.

Furthermore, I do not hand out advice as to how you should raise your childrem. If I was to do so, then I would have to say that it is incredibly stupid not knowing what your child is doing on a computer.

Speak of the devil… they were late today and there wasn't a peep! This place is losing its edge.

Honestly I never kept track of stipend delivery.