Age Verification - 6th Circuit says unconstitutional.

Majority on partially divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel strikes down as facially unconstitutional the recordkeeping requirements federal criminal law places on producers of images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" to verify the ages of those depicted in the images: Describing the federal statute at issue, the majority opinion explains, "The plain text, the purpose, and the legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress was concerned with all child pornography and considered recordkeeping important in battling all of it, without respect to the creator's motivation." The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially overbroad and then strikes down the law as unconstitutional.

You can access today's ruling at this link:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf

Even the dissenting judge agrees that the statute is overbroad, but he believes that judicial narrowing of the statute can save it from being unconstitutional.

This decision is a significant First Amendment ruling that directly implicates the controversial subjects of legal adult pornography and illegal child pornography. I expect that the ruling will receive plenty of attention.

Er.. Where does this say LL's age verification stuff is unconstitutional?

This ruling has no bearing on age verification for access to adult content... but rather the requirements in record keeping for the ages of people who have been pornographically photographed or filmed.

It doesn't..

It's a stretch, but...

If one could make the argument that the controllers of avatars in sexual situations are similar to actors playing a role...then the record-keeping ruling could be material.

Not that I care one whit about porn. But I do want as little personal information gathered by LL as possible.

Age verification simply means verifying one's age. The only record that needs to be kept is: "Age Verified - PG Access" or "Age Verified - Full Access".

The ruling in question has absolutely no bearing on anything but PRODUCING adult material and record keeping. Otherwise... there would be no age requirements for anything... voting, drinking, gambling, etc. It would be illegal to card for all of those things then, and that will never happen.

Doesn't really matter, since it is a Circuit court case, it only applies in the areas covered by the court. The 6th Circuit covers Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio. A case brought in another circuit could be decided in another manner. It would take a Supreme Court decision to make it apply nation wide.

And it would have to actually involve asking for ID to access adult material.

Why I said it didn't really matter. Even if it had involved asking for ID, it only applies to 4 states.

From reading the opinion, it seems this:

* applies to USC 2257, the law under which any US site offering pornography was required to keep records of exactly who appeared in the pornography, so that the police or others can verify that they are not children.

* refers to a problem regarding a "swingers" magazine which published sexually explicit photos of adult singles. Part of the point of this service was supposed to be that the pictures were anonymous and identified only by a phone number, but under USC 2257 this could not be true, because since they were publishing sexually explicit material, the identities of the individuals had to be recorded and the records had to be available for inspection.

* as far as I can tell the opinion basically says that USC 2257 is unconstitutional because it unfairly burdens people who are publishing photos which, when looked at, can be obviouly seen to not show children.

I don't think it has that much of a bearing on pornography in SL, though.

Only in the most general sense.

If these sites arent required to prove their "models/actors" are 18 for RL photos,etc that can readily be seen on the internet.

How likely is it someone is going to be prosecuted for any kind of obviously cartoon images on Second Life?

At this juncture in our Second Lives, we are seem to be subject to the least common denominator of international law. By LCD, i'm referring to the *most* restrictive laws.

If online gambling is illegal in the US, then from an SL perspective, its illegal everywhere.

If age play is illegal in the Netherlands, its illegal everywhere.

VAT - Europeans may be getting stuck with the bill directly;indirectly, it trickles down to all of us.

Second Life may be a global community, but the laws Linden Lab has to concern itself with are the local ones of its residents, some of which may even contradict one another. Its no surprise to me at all that confusion and frustration ensues.

Seems like the concern of SL is (or should be) whether there is an enforcible age limit either for those who produce pornographic scenes (having sex in SL is production of pornography, indeed, as well as strip club owners and the strippers themselves), or for those who are able to view pornography (enetring strip clubs, voyeurism, even with camera controls, etc.)

My personal opinion--parents should know what their kids are doing online and the government should stop making it difficult and expensive to run a platform like this.

I would also add that since SL's billing offices are in the UK that it may also not apply, but that's just this non-attorney's opinion.

BTW I'm trying to get my son legitimately registered, they are asking for a photo ID, passport or birth certificate since he doesn't have a cellphone (OH! THE HORROR!), which is a PITA as far as I'm concerned but I understand the necessity. But it also makes me wonder if I shouldn't have just let him register as an adult, it's not like he's not going to see this stuff eventually anyway.

My kid doesn't use the computer unless I am sitting with her, and I still think age verification is a good thing. It's not the government that is making platforms like this difficult to run, it's the stupid people who let their kids online without supervision, and the stupid people who are willing to let other people's kids get hurt so they can save themselves 5 minutes rather than verify their age.

[ edit ] - I am not in favor if the IDV system LL is introducing. I seek an alternative which is less invasive to privacy.

I have never had that kind of supervision.. and I doubt I'll ever give it... if your kid goes someplace they aren't supposed to, it's my opinion that..hey if you catch em, punish them. But it's my opinion that kids need freedom to explore the world around them, and learn about various things. If I hadn't had the internet growing up.. I don't think I'd be who I am today, and I can *promise* I wouldn't be as open minded. Just teach them proper safety guidelines and such, and they should be fine. ANd again.. if you catch them doing it, be mad =P

How old is your oldest child?

Uhm, if you are considering falsely registering your child as a Adult, I wouldn't publicly advertise it as it is a TOS violation. I'm curious, I've seen several mentions of owning a cell phone as a form of ID. How is that? I can walk into a 7-11 here and buy a prepaid cell phone in a box and activate it without anyone knowing who I really am.

Almost 7.

My child has plenty of freedom to explore, and she's happy to have me with her when she does. I explained that the internet can be dangerous for children, and that some people look there for kids to hurt. I then explained that if I am with her while she is on the internet, she will be infinitely safer than without. She is happy to have me there, and we use the time to laugh and enjoy each other's company. I don't make it about "restriction", I make it about safety and understanding.

I also understand that other people are not as interested in their kids... and it is the kids, not the parents, that suffer when the kid gets into trouble. Age verification is about helping the kids avoid some of the pitfalls. It's not foolproof... but it's something.

I am most certainly NOT considering that, let me make that clear. But, the TOS for Teen Second Life are for 13-17, so that age frame isn't all that out of line for the stuff I've seen in Second Life. (EDIT: then again I haven't seen all that much of SL) I wouldn't even consider having my 7 year old play Second Life, but my 13 year old would have a lot of fun building stuff, the social aspects are going to be secondary for him.

I guess the cell phone thing is if they can talk to you they can tell if you are a who you say you are, who knows. I'm pretty sure they intend on calling you to verify your ID.

My daughter was never called, save for the code texted to the phone that was used to activate her membership. However, all the cellular phones are in my name, so I'm not sure how they checked? I don't even think the phone company realises that particular number is hers - it's just a number, to them.

I'm guessing there is a way to verify the child's RL name, based upon the adult's name (phone bill) and online birth records or something.

At least I hope so! Otherwise how would they know who is on the teen grid?

Incidentally, if your child gets a premium account, make sure they sign in at least once to the grid right away. Stipend doesn't start unless they do that.

Mmmmm .. have to disagree there. 100% of internet access is supervised. I don't look over his shoulder, but I can see from across the room what he is looking at clearly. I also believe in allowing children reasonable freedom, but in my view allowing them to roam the internet unsupervised is like sticking them in a red light district unsupervised -- it's just a bad idea.

Indeed. The law failed to make an exception for makers of geriatric porn, where it's plainly obvious from visual inspection that the participants are all over age 18.

back to the OP, the relevance is that LL does not NEED to prevent any depiction of sex if they can reasonably assure that the people involved are all adults. which means IDV becomes a protection for LL, and allows ignorance of resident activities (instead of policing them). (do I hear a possible end to all the 'age play' accusations? perhaps even an end to the "Broadly Offensive" nonsense? oh joy, oh rapture)

doesn't matter though because if XYZ teen can "borrow" mum or pops credit card for payment info, they could just as surely "borrow" their ID for the same purpose....