Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

I suspect this is the point where a lot of people are making a rather horrifying realisation:

Justice works by tradeoffs.

It doesn't sound right by our natural sense of justice, but it is true. Unfortunately, it has to work that way.

Who are the people looking at virtual child pornography?
a) People who are aroused by the concept of sex with children,
b) People who see the images as a depiction of role-play between adults.
People in group b) can easily modify their avatars to look like adults wearing costumes, so the only actual freedom being taken from them is the ability to make their images more "realistic" in one particular way. Certainly, that loss is nothing compared to the risks associated with legitimising the actions of people genuinely in group a). Thus, the ban in justified.

And since we are at it ban the SIMs 2 because on that game you can control a child too.

No, it isn't. This was struck down by the supreme court.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075

However, there are more europeans using SL than americans. In fact, there are more Germans using SL than Americans.

LL is a business. They are not the government and are under no obligation to allow anything they don't want on their own servers. Over half of their user base is in countries where depictions of children, even virtual avatars, engaging is sex is illegal.

It is all fine and well for people to tell Linden Lab to risk losing the majority of their customers so a handful of people can get blowjobs from child avatars at Club Lolita, since it isn't your company.

You do however risk all of us, including non-americans, losing SL in the process.

I think trying to now make all of this outlawed, even in private, is just PR. It's unenforcable. The problem is that it was already against the rules to do this in public and there is was, going on anyway.

Tybalt has provided sources where Sexual ageplay involving child avs may very well be illegal.

The law he refered to hasnt been challenged in the supreme court.

He was referring to the 2003 law, not the 1996 law.

It is a depiction - of computer-generated images. What it is not is a child. That's the whole thing. A child AV on Secon Life is not a real live actual child. It is a computer graphic, one that is controlled by a real live adult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003


Some highlights of the Bill that was signed.




*Prohibits computer-generated child pornography. (this would of course be SL ageplay)
*Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in (Miller test) obscene OR engaged in sex acts.


Now then October, as far as the "Supreme Court" overturning it, it was the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Not the SC) and they only over ruled ONE part of it and it doesn't pertain to the depiction of child pornography


"On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The government did not appeal this ruling."

Actually it has been according to the very article he posted.

Oh. My. God.

Did you read the post?

The "consensus" is the consensus of forumgoers, which is, what, a few hundred? Maybe a couple thousand?

And.. um... it's not "to ban child av's", which would probably have alleviated this whole thing, if they had, it's to stop people from having sex with child avs.

Yeesh.

It's illegal in Germany too. And btw, according to the metrics that were just released. There are more Americans than Germans in SL.

Americans make up 29.49% of SL. Germans are at 10.37%. Check the latest SL blog post.

Once again, overturning the pandering part of the bill is not throwing out the whole thing.


And again, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is not The Supreme Court.

What 2003 law?

And how exactly do you propose LL go about "stopping people from having sex with child avs"? AR any you see? What do you think the end result of this will be Mickey?

When people are no longer able to tell the difference between pixel fantasy and real life things are getting scary.

I'll try to find the link I was referring to but nevermind if that is their stats.

Still, Americans are only 30% of their customers.

I have to look at the stats to see if they have any more details.

and just to show I am not getting this all from wikipedia.


http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm


http://www.amberillinois.org/PDF/protectact2003.pdf


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00151:@@@L&summ2=m

The PROTECT Act (Prosecuting Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003).

Yes, mean images of child pornography stored or viewed on a computer. A child AV, even one engaged in sex play, is not pornography because it is not a child.

Yes, I remember this now, but it's a bit vague, more like, if it looks like a photoshop of a real kid we should "strengthen the law" to stop it:

Solution #3: Strengthen the Laws Against Child Pornography in Ways that Can Survive Constitutional Review. Among other provisions, the bill will:

·Revise and strengthen the prohibition on ‘virtual’ child pornography.

·Prohibit any obscene materials that depict children, and provided tougher penalties compared to existing obscenity law.

·Encourage greater voluntary reporting of suspected child pornography found by internet service providers on their systems.

I know I am speaking english. I just know it.

Akchally...

( “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

From: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

I guess the question is: Are Second Life avatars indistinguishable from an image of "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"?

"Prohibits computer-generated child ppornography"

it IS a COMPUTER-GENERATED CHILD. So isnt that defined EXACTLY?

Well you could always do a search for Child on SLX and tell me if you think those are adults?

What are you talking about?

You said "the consensus was to ban child av's". That's incorrect.
The rest... huh?

No, it isn't a computer generated child. It could be whatever the person behind it says it is. It could just as easily be a computer-generated hobbit, or a computer-generated short, slightly-built adult.