Child av---illegal?

Your analogy confuses me somewhat. Let's just talk about SL for a bit.

Do you think that these two SL griefing scenarios
1. Adult av in sexual position *suddenly* transforming into a child shape on your property with the intention of getting you in trouble.
2. Child av *suddenly* getting into a sexual situation on your property with the intention of getting you in trouble.

Do you think these two grieifing scenarios are very different from each other or take different amounts of time to execute?

Thanks!

Actually i think i understood this part of the analogy. An avatar shaped like child, in a sexual pose/activity, on your land, assuming this person is taking snapshots or someone nearby is taking snapshots, could be a dangerous griefing tool, within the scope of SL. A "knife" might be a little dramatic, but oh well, such is the nature of analogies. Anyway, we don't really know what happens to the landowners in a case like this. I must remind you all that we are venturing into hypothetical-land, now. It seems to me that the person who would be in the most trouble would be the one shaped like a child. On the other hand, the "Broadly Offensive" blog post stated that there was some kind of sex den, which they confiscated when they banned the offensive accounts. (Pardon me if i have my facts wrong on this...) That seems to be a far cry from holding the landowner legally responsible because of a random walk-on incident.

I've been ARed jes for being a child avvie before. It tickled.

Seriously, though, if they included a complete log transcript (I did, in my counter AR for harassment), it would be their account, mint mines, dat would be in jeopardy.



Ya, I dun go into places like dat. Why would I even wanna? Heck, even on some places dat might jes possibly be an issue I tend t'avoid.

(An thankoo, daddy, if you read dis later, for checkin out dat Halloween place. Now I wanna see it!)

But I could sure see some of the possible RP from some of the older boys, tryin' to pass off a "fake ID" at the door of some of those places, huh?



Yer welcome! Jes kiddin on the robosexuality. Jes someting my little ears heard on a Futurama rerun.

Mari

OMG that scene had me in hysterics. That was a fun movie.

From what I recall of previous threads, it's more issues with RL law enforcement in some countries, rather than LL themselves. Issues with SL caches an all, someting like dat. Very much someting to be found in Speculation land (located in Hypothetical Island (128, 128, 0)).

One could make a good argument, though, dat an innocent person *could* face troubles for supposed child sex stuff with a lotta stuff on the Internet. I *personally* tink dis is not one of those instances.

Oh, an it was the entry before the "broadly offensive" one, the "German TV" one dat discussed the 'sex den' you mentioned, which also included the passing of RL pedophilic images from avvie to avvie. Which, ya, could also be used to grief people *regardless* of avatar.

Mari

Again, you can analyse logically all you like, but the way humans respond doesn't always follow logical rules.

If someone has a concealed (but loaded) gun, it isn't that much more work for them to draw it and shoot you than for someone who already has their gun drawn to shoot you. But all the same, you would not treat someone who was walking around with a gun at the ready just the same as anyone else on the grounds that anyone could have a concealed gun. It's a carefully designed balance that probably goes right back to prehistory.

(And no, I'm not saying that wearing a child av is the same as carrying a gun - the gun example is only to show how the human brain operates with general undesirable things. It's the same with general things. If you're trying to catch a child who's waving a wet paintbrush around randomly, you might get prepared to get paint on your clothes, but you don't go and put on your artroom coat when trying to catch _any_ child because they might be hiding a paintbrush.)

Also, I don't especially support the view, so arguing with me won't be particularly useful. But the reality is that some people will tell you that you are not welcome on their land in a child avatar (even if it's not an adult area) and on their own land, you will be required to respect that.

The difference is that in that case, the "griefer" has to do something wrong too, because RL paedophile images are illegal in pretty much every country.

If someone passes you an RL paedophile image, you delete it and then AR or report them, because by even having that image to give to you they've committed a crime. On the other hand, an American griefer can play out sex in a child avatar in front of a German, and the German is legally guilty but the American has done nothing wrong.

Well said. I agree. If there is sex stuff going on in there, its difficult to explain in-character, what the heck Adz, and 8-year old, is doing there. Typically the role play consists of, "uhhh.. it think my dad is calling me *runs* *shudders*" There are some things that Adz is not meant to see, yet.

That, to me, is a good reason to say no child avatars allowed in certain places. There are sex poses everywhere, you make people uncomfortable when they are trying to get off, you're out of character, etc, are all valid. I'm not sure an eject/ban is necessary.. .i'll leave voluntarily.

However, there are some places that have no sex/no adult themed stuff/no nudity.. just dancing and entertainment, and they ban child avs due to paranoia/hysteria reasons (Yumi touched on this). Yes, its up to the landowner, but still it bothers me if the ban is for foolish or misguided reasons. I hope to close up some of the misguided reasoning happening in SL... a statement from LL that gives landowners immunity from walk-on incidents might help. Even though I already read that between the lines, a direct statement would be good.

The problem is that LL can't defeat the laws of a country.

The fear is that people in countries such as Germany could be accused of downloading child pornography because at the moment a child avatar did something sexual, SL sends a description of that fact to their client, and thus the user has "downloaded data from the internet, sufficient to decode a child porn image".

Now there are lots of legal doubts about that - whether the download was voluntary or not, for example. But the problem with legal doubts is that they aren't certain to go your way ("had you heard about the previous German child sex in Second Life? So you chose to go ahead and play Second Life anyway even knowing that material of that type existed there? No further questions, your honour..". And the problem with a child pornography case is that legal doubts don't really help, because anyone who is charged with a crime like that is likely to be ruined IRL even if they are found innocent.

Technicaly _anyone_ on the land parcel is at risk, but only really landowners have the authority to impose a ban.

Heheh me too. Everyone in the theater laughed hysterically at that part. For the purposes of this thread, hopefully it demonstrates that cartoon child dangly bits alone do not constitute a sexual activity. (The OP mentioned something about making an extra effort to be neuter "down there"

Ok I follow your analogy, now. Thanks. You are explaining *why* people react this way, not why they *should* act this way.

Actually, no difference, in at least one core way: LL would be banning the griefer in dat instance, for doing somethign secual with their child avvie. They would not be banning you, the viewer.

BTW, to answer a previous question: it would prob'ly take as long for a child avatar to pull out any sort of attachments (or remove attire) to do something sexual (which, well again, baked on underwears!) as it would for any avvie to change shape or attach items. The issue of time taken to pull out a gun is irrelevant.

Mari

This kind of risk is EVERYWHERE. Just living your life, you run the risk of false accuastions of this nature, judged in the court of public opinion. Seriously, it can happen to ANYBODY.

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/index.html
I know its asking alot, asking you to follow this link to a 4-page article. So I'll pull out a key part of the article. "Cynthia Stewart turned in bath-time pictures of her 8-year-old daughter to a Fuji film processing lab in Oberlin, Ohio. The lab contacted the local police, who found the pictures "over the line" and arrested the mother for, among other things, snapping in the same frame with her daughter a showerhead, which the prosecution apparently planned to relate somehow to hints of masturbation." I do strongly encourage everyone to read it.

BTW. there is a shortage of adult male volunteers willing to work with children in local mentoring programs, etc.. I can speculate why that is.

My point is, I don't think its possible to avoid this risk, so why try? Its a flaw in our system, its hurting adults and kids (RL). So, you can go about your business as normal, or you can stop playing SL, stop getting photos of your kids developed, and stop volunteering to work with kids out of fear of false accusations.

True, but you missed an important point - for a German, it isn't a _false_ accusation.

That is true of the actual incident, but not of the hypothetical scenario you are drawing.

Huh? I guess female skins are different from male skins, because I've never seen a male skin with any naughty bits. You have to buy those separately.

I seem to recall seeing at least one with bits, in an ad many ages ago. It is, as far as I know, common with women's skins. Someone else will have to chime in on this, cuz, well, I dun exactly have a lot of working knowledge on the topic.

Mari

Well thats because male bits dangle. You should watch "House".

i dont think a child av is illegal. certain portrayals using same are in some locales.

a child av to me personally is creepy as all heck...but thats just me...i am here to interact and socialize with adults...

but i also wish everyone whatever fun they want...even the stuff that my own ideals say is wrong or icky to me

The only issues where child avatars fall afoul of SL policy is if they are used in virtual sex acts, or if the *RL* age of a player of a child avatar is assertyed to be under the main grid's allowable age.

Mari

So when exactly can I AR (abuse report) a child avatar? What if they're standing fully clothed outside of a private house and there is naked person standing next to them? AR-able? The other way around? AR-able? What if they're standing inside a place like bukkake bliss and there's no one else there? AR-able? What if I see a child and an adult avatar cuddling on a sexbed with clothes on? AR-able? Is it basically a 'penetration' scenario that would be AR-able? Sorry I don't mean to be perverse or anti-child at all. Just genuinely curious as to the exact situations that everyone would agree on as being reportable.

I wouldn't AR people for any of that.

Sigh. Pretty clearly, it is to everyone's benefit to AR in cases where it is obvious (and demonstrable in an AR or the AR won't get very far) that the child avatar is behaving in such a way as to sexualize the child avatar or sexualize children as such. It is to no-one's benefit to AR them when they are not sexualizing themselves or children as a category.

Otherwise hard put to put it in words, because as the famous comment on pornography has it, you know it when you see it. But this is not rocket science, folks.

The only reason there is much of a problem with this any more is that there are some people who seem to think the depiction of a child (at least in SL) is inherently sexual, including the delusion that operating a child av is a signal (wink, wink) that one is a pedophile or an enabler of pedophiles. Frankly, this delusional and/or paranoid belief is what is sick here, not the existence of child avs.

People who are obsessed with the child=sex equation need to get help. If you want to help, catch a real pedo, if they are still catchable here, and quit taking cheap shots at people who choose to rp an innocent child.

Never mind child avatars - what about child prims?

As for the hypotheticals posed here, I think I would try addressing the child av in roleplaying mode, and see what their response is. That should tell you a lot. There are SL explanations - like unintentional tp into a location that used to be a park with a swing set before it became a "bukkake bliss" - that ought to be considered if one is trying to do the right thing rather than trying to find an excuse to file an Oh-Noes-PEDO-PEDO-PEDO AR.

Except for the penetration scenario (which I suspect Colette was not thinking of in her post above). Not much other explanation for that, is there, and it is the kind of thing that could get SL closed down by law enforcement.