Why do people not report underage operating on the grid?

No it is not. And you might use it for gaming purposes but not everyone does.



So why hasn't he been directed to the Teen Grid? Did you know there was one?



Yeh. And you'll look like the youngest one there ;P



How do you know? Are you violating the TOS by going there?



You may have taken my post out of context. I did imply that these examples gave no indication of ageplay. OP has had a history of bias over child avatars who abide the TOS.



That may be so, but you're not their parent to make that call for their life, and not the eCommerce community to declare it's fine for young adults to run freely on the main grid.

I agree we cannot make anyone report anyone. ARing is a discrete process unless someone publicizes it in a blog or forum. But it would be in everyone's best interest to get rid of minors and ageplayers from the main grid before - as mentioned - the wrong person finds out and there's no SL.

I'm sorry, but I think it is you who is hopelessly confused about the law. Exactly which law do you believe is being violated?

Taking a picture of someone underage isn't being discussed, so it's irrelevant and shouldn't have been mentioned.

Having sex with someone underage isn't being discussed. I will point out, just to illustrate your error, that there are still quite a few states where the age of consent is 16 or 17. If you really knew the law, you'd know that it's wrong to make generalizations like that; the law requires precision.

As for furnishing adult materials to a minor, that's the only one that has any relevancy, but it's still wrong. First, no one has said anything about furnishing any such materials to the minor in question. Merely being in SL is not the same as furnishing such materials. Second, I can't recall ever seeing such a law that doesn't say "knowingly" or something similar; if you know of one, please provide a link (and don't confuse it with statutory rape laws, which often don't have that "knowingly" requirement). Hence another user who might share such images but doesn't know the person's age wouldn't be liable, including LL. Third, I haven't seen any law or legal theory that imposes upon the users any sort of obligation to inform LL of such cases.


Again, the issue of taking RL nude, sexually oriented pictures of a RL minor isn't being discussed here. To argue this way just shows the mindset of someone who can't work with basic legal distinctions.

I don't understand how the OP got this info. I skimmed the thread and still didn't see any clarification.

Nope. (^_^)

But, they do post to Snapzilla and Flickr. Some have sent me links. Others have seeked me out after they birthday transfer. (^_^)y

I see you're talking about Daniel's case as opposed to the 13 year-old in the OP. In that case, I would have reported the child and let him deal with his issues *outside* of SL. At the risk of being harsh, I don't see SL as an ersatz limb of the Social Services. In fact I don't see it as an appropriate medium for the Social Services at all.

Not an "Ersatz/replacement", but an addition and in some cases maybe the first step to get help in RL? The internet (and that includes SL), can be (actually, it is) an important instrument. To go back to the example of the gay teen Kidd Krasner introduced: the internet can be the turning point from "I'm a sick pervert and the only one like that on the whole planet" to "I'm just a normal human being with the right to live unharmed and happy like everybody else".

People keep saying this in spite of consistent evidence to the contrary. MySpace was sued for $30M because of a RL sexual assault against a teenage girl by someone she met on MySpace. The lawsuit was thrown out. They appealed, and lost. If MySpace wasn't shut down because of an alleged statutory rape case, what makes you think SL is at serious risk?

This Washington Post article (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2007/02/judge_myspace_guiltless_in_chi.html) has an interesting quote from the judge. It says:
"In the end, according to the judge, 'If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace.'"


I'm not sure which section of the TOS you're referring to, but this suggests we need to AR not only all of the illegal sploders still around, but all the players using them. Maybe we need to AR all the machines that have been purportedly found to be legal, but for which we know better?

I am saying that SL account holders are not in a position to deal with children's transitional issues, however serious or painful those issues may be. Adult-child relations are a minefield in RL and they are close to meltdown in an online environment such as SL quite simply because there are far too many questions that cannot be answered with certainty.

SL is a floor wax AND a dessert topping.

Fair enough, Kidd. And I think that, for the most part, I probably agree with the judge's statement.

But what about the ethical issues involved? Does the fact that SL would not be legally liable, or that we don't have a "duty" to protect kids who appear in SL mean that we must abrogate our ethical duty to respond when someone has put her or himself potentially within harm's way?

I'm afraid that in this case I believe you are wrong - incredibly wrong; fantastically wrong. First of all, assuming the child's situation isn't just an elaborate fiction (after all, stating in chat that you're under 18 isn't PROOF, right? So how can anything else be?), to encourage a child to interact with people they don't know on the internet to the point where they're willing to give out personal details about themselves such as sexual orientation is recklessly irresponsible and in no way serves his or her wellbeing. If anything, it puts them in an even more vulnerable position and sets them up to be taken advantage of.

I am not a therapist. I'm not a licensed social worker, nor a child psychologist, nor a law enforcement officer. I'm an adult - and in the kid's case a stranger; and I cannot think of A SINGLE CONTEXT wherein an adult stranger on the internet discussing sexual matters with a minor is appropriate - not a single one. I'm absolutely beside myself that anyone thinks otherwise. If discussing such things on the internet is somehow vitally essential for the child's mental health - there's a bloody Teen Grid, where they can relate to people their own age in relative safety.

Also, addressing another issue: SL is private property, owned by LL, and the number of residents SL gains doesn't make a difference. To compare "standing up to" LL's right to choose their user base with real life "injustice" that actually causes real harm to real people in my opinion makes a mockery of the issue of social justice and civil rights worldwide.

/me agrees with that.

I'd say that in a similar situation it would be better to find a youngster some RL info and direct him to professional help geared towards Teens and their problems, then make sure they leave the adult Grid. I know there are such organisations in the UK and there must be similar things in the US and other countries.

Much as we can sympathise with a young person who seems to have problems, the adult Grid isn't the place to try help sort out their teenage angst (or worse), and from his point of view, while friendships online are all well and good, they can be ephemeral. Solid RL connections would probably stand him in better stead if he has real troubles to overcome.

You might stick around to befriend such a Teen in all good faith, but what happens when you can't be there in a crisis or if they just get mad at you for some reason? Could be really dangerous fallout on one's RL from the situation, IMO.

Re the OP's 13 yr old girl case - If I found a youngster had been regularly allowed into adult SL by their parents, too right I'd report it (as long as I had something definite to base suspicions upon and NOT hearsay from another). Bringing your kids in here is stupidly irresponsible to my mind - but more because it puts all adults at risk from false accusations or unknowingly interacting with an underager than for kids' safety. I believe that online they're at more risk on Facebook/Bebo/in teen chatrooms etc etc, than on SL atm.

--
Aes

I quite agree that the best thing for a kid in that case is to be in touch with other kids who both can relate and who are in a situation where they can act responsibly (e.g., an official help line, not some other game).

Filing an AR against such as kid doesn't achieve that. Even telling them "here's a link" and then filing an AR may not do that.

Again, I can't speak for Daniel, but I have worked on a gay support line, and I've been on the other side of that support line. I know what it's like when someone has struggled for months just to make that first contact. I know what it's like when you refer them to a better option, but they keep coming back because the second step is harder than the first. I know what it's like when they keeping contacting you because that's the rapport that's been established. And I know that there comes a time when you have to stop holding their hand and push them to where they belong.

As it happens, I've never come across someone in SL in this situation, or at least they never admitted to being under 18. I have come across a few claiming to be 18, either still living with parents or otherwise struggling. I try to introduce them to others in SL closer to their age, I try to identify resources appropriate for them, and I try to talk them out of letting their gonads either run or ruin their lives. I explain to them that "getting used" and "getting dumped" are par for the course in SL. Mostly I try to get to the point where I can say "You shouldn't be trying to hook up until you're less vulnerable" and have a decent chance of them accepting that.

This is the interesting and important question: *how* do we protect someone in the best way? I seriously doubt that there is a general approach that works for everyone in every situation. What is good for one, might be the worst to do for the other. This is where our ability to think comes in.

The U.S. law doesn't pertain to SL at all in this case. The 18 limit is LL's rule - it's not a law - and entry into SL doesn't come under the law in the U.S. I'm not talking about the laws of any country. The U.S. law only applies if something that is legally forbidden because of age occurs - anywhere - including SL.

It's also a statement of fact that when something like this happened to MySpace, the lawsuit got thrown out.

I appreciate that you have a lot of money tied up here. That doesn't make it ok to exaggerate the risks or ignore the entire reality. Not just the "MySpace was sued for $30M reality" but the "Case was thrown out reality" as well.

Yep. I don't think we should ever let "rules" supersede our intelligence and ability to judge and reason. Half of the atrocities of history were carried out by people who were "just following orders."

But, yes. The REAL issue is identifying the principles and criteria that we should use to make intelligent judgments about such situations when they arise.

You're assuming that "ARing the child" is "protecting the child." I disagree.

How would you feel if a child you AR'd wound up getting beaten to a pulp by his father? Or wound up committing suicide? Or wound up getting groomed because he went someplace where teens were allowed, and a predator, knowing that that's where the teens are, also went there?

It's obvious that some people (not you) who are gung-ho about the ARs are primarily interested in protecting SL or their investments in SL. It should be obvious that the primary reason for the rules in the ToS are to protect LL. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it's not the same as protecting the kids.

There are also people who really do care about protecting the kids, and SL is secondary. But if you really do care about the kids, is it too much to ask to treat each one as an individual, and do the best for that individual - which may or may not be the same as for the next one to come along?

To the extent the OP has any bias over child avatars, it stems from the fact that the nastiest attack I have ever experienced in SL originated from child avatars who boldly claim they are child avatars "...to 'be' a child, and run and jump, and play unencumbered with the responsibilities of adulthood."

I can tell you there was nothing of the sorts of play. It ended with a report to Linden Lab, and later 5 avatars were perm-banned from SL.

For child avatars in general the OP has the following PRIMARY position:

I would like to see a ban on all child avatars in SecondLife because:

a) As long as Linden Lab cannot guarantee that residents are not underage (in legal terms), child avatars is a vector for pedophiles operating in SecondLife where the risk of real children being hurt is unacceptably high.

b) Allowing child avatars creates an unacceptable business risk in that both Linden Lab and resident businesses become exposed to regulatory intervention by legislators, and litigation by authorities and individuals in the countries Linden Lab offers this service. It also unduly exposes residents to incriminate themselves according to legislation of their country of residence.

My SECONDARY position is:

If Linden Lab can guarantee that residents are of legal age, child avatars could be allowed under the provision of a registry where such avatars must register, and then be restricted to non adult areas of the grid. The reason for this is that point b) above still is valid since ANY depiction of child like avatars in adult/sexual situations can incriminate the resident according to the legislation in some countries.


These positions by the OP are nothing new, but was expressed multiple times during the debates on the adult content policies. I understand some will find them unreasonable.


----->>

As for the facts to the posting by the OP in this thread; there was a RL 13 year old girl in a child avatar who was subject to attempted sexual activity by a male adult.

My question to the forum was why people look the other way and don't report when they see or must understand residents are underage, and not to discuss child avatars as such. As far as I can see it is Holocluck Henly who constantly tries to turn the discussion in that direction.

Gavin,

You can not possibly have written that seriously. An AR does not make any of those things more likely to occur than they already were in a particular child's case if he or she were allowed to remain in SL. What if, by being such a good and understanding "buddy" in SL your underage friend gets the wrong impression and hits on you? Consider all the adverse consequences that could happen if you reject his advances!

Don't make me invoke Godwin's Law...

Agreed.

But that's still not the point.

If the child isn't aware of the rules, and didn't see the parents click through, then the parents aren't teaching the child that it's ok to ignore the rules.

If the parents didn't read the rules, then they're ignorant of the rules (which is bad), but it doesn't mean that they disagree with them.

Absolutely not. Of course we have an ethical duty to help them.

I think the only disagreement is whether or not filing an AR is really helpful 100% of the time. I'm not saying that it's never appropriate. I'm not even saying that if someone else chose to file an AR in a situation where I might choose to wait, then I think the other person has necessarily done harm. I'm just saying that there will be cases where filing an AR immediately makes life worse instead of better for some kids.

I am not sure such registration is anything different than the current registration of adult residents currently ongoing.

Anyone who violates the TOS is subject to a ban. If someone is exercising improper behavior involving a child image - avatar or otherwise - then it's over for them. It doesn't matter where really. It's just more likely in Zindra.