Im no prude but...

Yep. To this day, I don't think I've laughed harder watching a movie.

Hmm. Of course such beds are not on my shopping list; however, I believe that a reasonable person would assume that someone looking for an....uh, intimate cuddle (or whatever, etc) bed would not expect to find scenes of domestic violence while searching through their poses. I don't think such anims should be banned or restricted or whatever, but I do think a creator ought to have the common courtesy (or at least the common sense) to label such a bed. Appropriately. Not only so that people explicitly not looking for such a thing can stay away, but so that the customers who would be interested in such things could actually find them, too.

It's easy to say "well, if such a thing offends you, just avoid it", and it's good advice. But the sort of person who wants to avoid "it" needs to know that "it" is there, if they are to be able to avoid "it" as they choose.

I am not going to go through and read the whole thing...at least not without popcorn...but here is the real issue. This should have been marked differntly. But that is simply what the owner should have done, if the beds around it did not have them, then it would have been better to have the difference marked.

in video stores, they make a special room for controversial things. you have to 'know' what's in there before you go in....

Personally I found it hilarious and btw I like my men well done to slightly toasted
Most of shoot her poses I didn't see anything about them that was very offensive personally they were nothing. Me and my partner used it and animations in one I used did nothing literally nothing. I must been missing something.

Ok, just for fun.. let's see where we get to.

The First Amendment... basically, while read broadly, has never really been interpreted literally. As far as I know even Thomas Jefferson tried to prosecute conduct he thought of as seditious. The US Supreme Courrt has also consistantly ruled that pornography and obscenity fall outside of the First Amendment.

Many jurists, and constitional experts (obviously not counting you Trout), percieve a complex legal and societal tension between protection of personal freedoms and protection of our children.. these have only been increased with the dawn of the internet.

It is not a simplistic issue at all, but one needing serious consideration and not just knee jerk reaction based on a juvenile interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

As I tried to intimate.. everyone is back and forth on this ...As far back as 1996 CODA was instituted only to be decalred unconstitional by the Supreme Court in 1997.

That's all I'm really saying. This idea that the protection of children is never and never shall be in loco parentis doesn't really cut it.

The case which I refered to in my earlier post is discussed here

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21wed2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I obviously have 1st Amendment concerns as much as anyone else on these boards, all I'm saying is that it's a complex issue and not cut and dried by any means.

Obviously this isn't perhaps the best audience with which to voice such concerns.

Oh.. and I'm none of the people you seem to think I am.. and I only consider myself a Troll, if the definition of Troll is restricted to the desenting voice.. and then I jolly well am..

You have to soak them in cold water - lots of it.

(No I've never been shot - experience gained from childbirth.)

Lately, perhaps. Historically, not so much. Rather, such rights as freedom of speech were historically abridged only for the preservation of the state (e.g., the apt "sedition" example) or protection of the safety and welfare of the general population (slander, shouting "fire" in a crowded auditorium, etc).

The current "think of teh childrenz" epidemic--a legal "viral meme" that creates a protected class that is *so* protected that all non-members are expected to sacrifice their freedom even when no member of the class is actually party to the speech--is really quite a new phenomenon.

This current obsession with children's welfare arose coincident with (the current instance of) the two wage-earner family structure, and its associated parental guilt, as society seeks effective new modes of child rearing. I daresay the same threats to personal liberty arose with other media (movies, records, video games), prior to the Internet; they were handled with much less intrusive means than are already present in the SL registration process--never mind IDV. But that is no protection from PR and (equivalently) future legislation, in a judicial climate thoroughly infected by the virus and increasingly eager to curb any personal freedoms not involving firearms.

I agree Qie, particularly on the historical and societal context of the issue.

Perhaps I'm ridiculously naive and innocent, but given the analogy of the "viral meme" and its impact.. I'm not so sure it has to be treated out of hand as such a malicious and disruptive infection.

The world is evolving all the time, and yes children will become more sophisticated and it is impossible for society.. even responsible parents .. to protect them from everything.

I'm not sure that's a reason not to try.. and yes perhaps as adults we may need to intelligently dilute or manage some of our "freedoms" in order to shelter the vulnerable.

Whatever anyone says.. our legal and societal frameworks have adopted the concept of in loco parentis for some time.

A quick google search for the term will throw up plenty of case law which appears to restrict student's 1st Amendment rights and the Supreme Court itself in 1987 ruled that the First AMendment rights of students are not necessarily coextensive with the rights of adults.

So as a society and as parents we quite happily delegate our responsibilities to other people when it suits us. Obviously if it limits our God given right to view as much pornography as we like.. we're less generous.

All I'm saying is, it's an issue. Just because we can't think of a solution doesn't mean that the current framework is correct or shouldn't be scrutinised.

And the argument.. "I ain't looking after anyone's kids 'cept my own".. well you can guess my opinion of that.

Sorry for being a bit of a bore.. it's just quite interesting.. to me at any rate..

Well, at least this one is an intelligent troll.

I'm still not entirely sure whether he really is serious about advancing his "think of teh childrenz" argument as an excuse to censor sexual depictions or speech in SL, or as I have presumed, just rattling everyone's cage.

If censorship, the matter has already been considered and resolved by the courts: Prohibiting speech or expression on the grounds that an impressionable person might encounter or overhear it, even in places where such a person is specifically prohibited, would reduce all of society to a level of discourse approximately at the level of the late Mister Rogers. With all due respect to Mister Rogers (which was a truly great kiddie program), the better course for society would be to prescribe appropriate medication for the overwrought would-be censor. Much of Shakespeare could not be performed; gynecologists could not so their job even in their own offices (you just never know!); married couples could not discuss begetting another child; etc. And of course, SL would cease to exist. Long story short, the (US and European, not the Saudi and Iranian ones) have long ago rightly decided that, childrenz tender sensibilities or no, in practice civilization must go on.

If trolling, in this case, carry on. It's actually interesting and enlightening. In this case. Socrates would have been amused.

Wow! I Like that idea!!!

Now while I'm flattered by the veiled compliment Har..I'm thinking that just because someone said nice things about me, I shouldn't then let them march an army of straw men past me.

If nothing else, can we at least admit between ourselves that "Censorship" may have been considered but has in no way been "settled" by the courts yet.

Obscenity has no protection under the 1st Amendment.. Pornography a bit.. and to be honest the Roth test itself would appear to to put paid to depictions of a "snuff" bed in a public environment whether accessible to children or not.

I'm assuming we can all agree that it is patently offensive and has no serious literary, artistic , political or scientific value.

And I'll cite again US v Williams 553 U.S (200 for the third time .. agree with the decision or not.. by upholding PROTECT it has indicated that the 1st Amendment concerns aren't settled in the context of the protection of children.

** you can find all this out in wikipedia... that's where I nicked it from..

As for Shakespeare.. I'm not sure he should be censored but is he really as good as everyone says? I know .. by even mentioning him you gain some reflected credibility.. because "no one can say bad things about Shakespeare".. but really..

"A rose by any other name...blah blah"..

I'm pretty sure if it was called cr*pweed your subconscious would have something to say to your nostrils on the matter.. maybe..

ok. the jig is up. i'm bartelbus. neener neener neener. LOL

See now you've ruined the whole film for me..

I'm pretty sure though that the tale of a self confessed "Troll" challenging the might of the SL Forums doesn't quite have the same ability to stir the soul as the story of Spartacus....although you know...I might look ok in a short skirt and sandals..

The obscenity precedent uses the community standards approach. With the internet being available in every community, the community standards approach pretty much yields in the case of what is on the internet. Porn, if that's what we're talking about, is ubiquitous and increasingly mainstream. A community standards analysis today would actually protect most internet porn, given how mainstream the viewing of internet porn has become in most communities -- the fact that it is done in private and is "hidden" from plain view (unlike a porn shop) isn't really relevant, because that's just the nature of the internet medium to begin with. One can often constitutionally regulate the time/manner/place of speech (hence the idea of using library filters), but outright banning of access to internet pornography is unlikely to wash under the Court's own obscenity jurisprudence.

and several layers of duct tape on your mouth?

/me smiles..

See that's interesting. Thanks Victoria .. I'll have to go away and mull that over a bit.

mmm.. just my mouth.. or is there something you want to share with the group..?

maybe your hands. LOL

Ah, good. A troll, and just a troll, rather than someone seriously out to get the sexxorz out of SL for teh childrenz OMG. And, as noted, an amusing and informative case of trolling. Since your mental stability no longer seems in question, carry on.

Just to clear up a collateral issue, I never really thought you were Prokofy - he was just the only person that I could think of that was banned from the forums from the dark ages, or whatever we are calling the time when there was general discussion. I have a hunch as to who your main account might be, but I'm not going to make any accusations without knowing, and I don't really care. You can post as Bartlebus or as whomever you want.

As for you being a troll, it has nothing to do with you posting a dissenting opinion, so you might as well drop the victimized martyr act. It has everything to do with the nasty tone you took in your first post and with the personal attacks and snarky tone you have used since then. That's what's trollish. You're trying to upset people by belittling or insulting them.

The case you cite to is specific to child pornography, and as the dissent in that case noted, it's a silly case because it makes it illegal to distribute or purvey materials that are constitutionally protected - to wit, images depicting child pornography where there is no actual child involved, such as digital images or altered images of adults. The fact that the court has extended constitutional protection to these materials in a previous case hurts your argument almost beyond repair, so I'm not sure why you would cite to that article.

Regardless of the fact that you cited to a NY Times article which fails to cite to the case itself, your citation is inapplicable in this case, and does not support you in loco parentis argument. In loco parentis is a theory by which the State can step in and act as a temporary guardian of a child or an incompetent (in the legal sense, not the colloquial sense). It's the basis for guardianship laws. It has nothing to do with any laws designed to broadly protect a class of people from being exposed to harmful material.

In the case you cited, the State was taking a protective role by stopping the distribution of materials which lead to the exploitation of a protected class. Perhaps this is a case more of parens patriae, where the State, in its role as sovereign can step in and prosectue a case on behalf of an unprotected party or act as a provider for those unable to care for themselves. But that doesn't really work all that well, either. I guess we have to abandon fancy Latin terms and argue the issue on its merits instead.

The bottom line is that the situation here is completely different than the one in the case you cited. In this case, you are advocating regulation of content that is not only available throughout the internet, but which also does not overtly affect minors. There is nobody for the State to step in and protect. I kow you're thinking that the protection should be there to keep minors from witnessing the behavior, but there is absolutely nothing to back that argument up, LL is in compliance with the laws that restrict access to pornographic materials by minors. In the case you cited, the court was attempting to block distribution of materials that are believed to have an immediate harmful impact on minors. That is, these materials, in the opinion of the legilators and the Court, have the potential to legitimize child abuse in the eyes of the victimizers and could lead to an actual child molestation. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that theory, but that's what they were going on). It's tantamount to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The likely immediate result is a stampede and serious injury.

While the First Amendment has not been interpreted literally, it has been interpreted liberally and expanded n favor of allowing freedom for people to speak and engage in whatever activities they choose - with obvious reasonable limitations. In fact, it has been expanded substantially to allow for freedoms that are not even in the text. Try to find a right to privacy in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court did. Roe v Wade was decided on First Amendment arguments. Materials considered by some to be offensive and pornographic are protected under the First Amendment, as are materials depicting violence against women, as offensive as you and I both find them. Your argument that the First Amendment protections have been tightened down or that there is some tension between free speech and the State's responsibility to protect children does not reflect the reality of the current state of Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Court is struggling about what to do with depictions of child pornography that do not involve actual children, but that is a very specific niche, not some broad re-interpretation of the First Amendment.

The limitations placed on free speech are designed to protect speech based on illegal activity and harm to others - actual depictions of child rape are illegal, for example, because they require someone to rape a child. To extend those restrictions to the types of animations we're talking about here, just because someone is insulted by them, completely undermines a couple hundred years of Constitutional interpretation.



Sorry - that was a long post, but I think it addresses your points. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional expert and I never have. Snide comments questioning my competence, however, does nothing for your argument.

I really have trouble following your examples.

Assuming it really says what you say it does ...

What does restricting a minor's free speech have to do with an adult's free speech?

The Minor isn't publishing the offending material. No one is arguing the Minor should see the material. They are saying that adults should be able to publish and/or see it.

And the right to publish/view whatever material should not be removed from those who have it for the sake of those who do not.

It really boils down to making the computers/the Internet a safe baby sitter for someone's kids. The attempt to make it such by restricting content is what would go against the 1st Amendment.

----------------

You were wrong about Jefferson by the way. It was Adams (his predecessor) that signed the Sedition acts- He opposed them and pardoned those affected when he took office.

Hello Trout,

Well first off, thanks for the.. well quantity and quality of your post.. although as a non-lawyer maybe I'm not the best judge of the quality.

I'll try to err on the side of pith if I may.

Firstly I believe that I did cite the case correctly in later post.. sorry if you missed that.

I think in citing it and the other examples .. including the concept of in loco parentis, I was simply trying to convey the idea that the idea of how and what we do as a society to protect the vulnerable in our society.. in this case children.. isn't simply to let them live or die in support of a sacrosanct interpretation of the 1st amendment or any case or finding.

I think I was simply trying to show the degree to which it seems our law makers are stuggling to deal with a new society (as Qie pointed out) and a new media/technology.

Perhaps I was too beligerent, but as I say I get a bit naffed off when I hear the same old, same old... in reaction to the real and new issues we're facing now.

I hear all the time.. why should the web be any different to TV or Shakespeare or the telephone.. well we muck about in SL for goodness sake.. we should be the last people to ask that question.

Besides which I like to ruffle feathers and have fun.. yes at the expense of other people's tightly held prejudices.. so shoot me..or call me a Troll..

I think Victoria's point was an interesting one. Again I'm not really qualified to talk about a community standards approach to obscenity.. but it raises an interesting ( albet perhaps uninformed question!) .. which community are we talking about.. Our state.. country.. ISP.. or our chosen online community .. SL for example.

And if we're connecting and socialising in a broad group where anyone can log in and walk past.. does that still count as "behind closed doors"..?

Just wondering..

QFT Colette.

Barty, your argument would seem to advocate the Internet acting in loco parentis, which seems ludicrous to me. Go ahead and turn off your kids' computers -- but leave mine alone, thank you.

In fact, though, SL does so to a certain extent, by restricting access to the main grid to adults.

The same lie is used to buy beer before a person is of legal age, which includes 50% or more of college age children in the U.S., especially as they use the Federal funds carrot as a stick to force the last holdout states into making 21 the legal drinking age. Your argument is that these young students, doing what students have been doing for a very long time, should result in massive amounts of punishment up and down the line, child to parent. I think you are simply making an argument that carries no distance at all in the real world. Nor should it.