SL closing down??
|
|
Stephen Wisent
Registered User
Join date: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 95
|
03-06-2008 06:43
From: Wulfric Chevalier The vast majority of EU legislation does not originate with Member States but with the Commission.
Yes, we do have the right to petition the European Court of Human Rights but that has very little to do with the EU. The ECHR is established by the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not an arm of the EU, and many countries who are not part of the EU have signed or ratified it. The UK of course signed the Convention in 1953, but it was not incorporated into UK law until 2000 when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force.
In any event, the Convention only governs the relationship between State and citizen, in much the same way as the US Constitution protects the citizen from interference by the Government e.g both the ECHR and the US Convention prevent Governments from restricting freedom of speech but they say nothing about my right to ban you from my property (or vice versa) for saying something I disagree with.
Which of the rights protected by the Convention is relevant here? I suppose being prohibited by law from viewing SL child AVs engaged in sex could be argued to be a breach of Article 10 on freedom of expression, but I don't think you would get very far. (For US citizens - the ECHR protection on free speech is much more limited than that in the US Constitution).
To try and get the ECHR interested in banning images of child AVs you would have to argue that the lack of a legal prohibition breaches the Convention. Article 3 on the grounds that seeing such images might possibly occasionally lead to a real child being abused which would be a breach of that child's right not to be inhumanely treated? Good luck with that one.
Frankly I cannot see the shift in legislation you have discussed as "fundamental". It closes a small loophole as you described it. Even the legislation that contains the loophole is arguably not a fundamental shift since the existing obscenity laws could probably have been used in most cases.
And all I said was it seemed unlikely that the EU would take an interest. That is a far cry from suggesting it was "outside the bounds of reason". Generally I agree with your posts Stephen, they are certainly amongst the better thought out that appear here, but maybe I begin to understand why you get so many hostile reactions. Hi Wulfric, Thanks for all of that, to be honest I didn't appreciate exactly what the implications would be. I'll go away and have a little read now and see if I can get up to speed with it all. I know I come across as a bit abrasive sometimes.. what can I say.. sometimes I like the minority position..  Anyway.. I'm off again. But thanks again for the information. Stephen |
|
Wulfric Chevalier
Give me a Fish!!!!
Join date: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 947
|
03-06-2008 06:51
From: Stephen Wisent Hi Wulfric, Thanks for all of that, to be honest I didn't appreciate exactly what the implications would be. I'll go away and have a little read now and see if I can get up to speed with it all. I know I come across as a bit abrasive sometimes.. what can I say.. sometimes I like the minority position.. Anyway.. I'm off again. But thanks again for the information. Stephen Yeah well, to be honest I have a major bee in my bonnet about how little most of my compatriots know about European institutions, especially when it's someone I respect and usually agree with. To go back to where all this started, that's largely the fault of a media that has little interest in anything other than sensationalist stories, whether it's the small (but definitely real - I have seen it a couple of times) incidence of child porn in SL or faceless Brussels beauracrats trying to straighten our bananas. As for minority positions, they don't get much more minority in the UK than my strongly pro-EU views . |
|
Marianne McCann
Feted Inner Child
Join date: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 7,145
|
03-06-2008 06:53
From: Adz Childs /me looks down, puts his hand over his private area and screams, "They want to remove our taints too??!?!?" Adz is today's thread winner! From: Stephen Wisent *shrugs.. perhaps.. although to quote Captain Kirk (and no I'm not a trekkie ) The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.. Clearly you are not. The line is Spock's. Then again, you've admitted to trolling the thread, so it's just as easy for you to find up the trekkies by misattributing the line to James Thomas Kirk. From: someone So I guess the logic goes that if one child is spared pain and anguish , then the temporary discomfort of a particular SL group is worth it. And how many RL children have been spared here? From: Stan Pomeray Channel 5, which has about 5% of the UK TV audience, obviously has some major problem with SL, as they have been carping on about it in the past and have been trying to make it out as some sort of "threat". I think it's more complex than that. If they really had a major problem with SL, would they have their own island here? Would they host events here? They're bamboozling us. They're selling us the panic. When you try to push how terrible SL is for 'clearly allowing this sort of pedophilia to happen' (my paraphrasing of their scare tactics), you do not turn around and cross-promote your SL area as a venue to discuss it -- not eithout having a motive involving the self-promotion of the area. It's cynical, but it sure appears to be the truth here. From: Stephen Wisent Anyway I'll bow out of this thread now From: Stephen Wisent Anyway.. I'm off again. But thanks again for the information. "How can we miss you if you won't go away?"  How dare you introduce something rational into the discussion!
_____________________
  "There's nothing objectionable nor illegal in having a child-like avatar in itself and we must assume innocence until proof of the contrary." - Lewis PR Linden "If you find children offensive, you're gonna have trouble in this world " - Prospero Linden
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
03-06-2008 06:59
From: Marianne McCann Adz is today's thread winner!
Considering what this thread has become, I wouldn't be too happy with the prize  From: someone
Clearly you are not. The line is Spock's. Then again, you've admitted to trolling the thread, so it's just as easy for you to find up the trekkies by misattributing the line to James Thomas Kirk.
Actually James _Tiberius_ Kirk did say that in response to Spock's original "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. *Or the one*" /me gives Mari an"A" for effort and gives her a lollipop.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Pie Psaltery
runs w/scissors
Join date: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 987
|
03-06-2008 07:03
From: Marianne McCann misattributing the line to James Thomas Kirk.
Umm... it's Tiberius |
|
Marianne McCann
Feted Inner Child
Join date: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 7,145
|
03-06-2008 07:22
Looks like I caught two of ya. (Though really, I was tryin' for Stephen) Mari
_____________________
"There's nothing objectionable nor illegal in having a child-like avatar in itself and we must assume innocence until proof of the contrary." - Lewis PR Linden "If you find children offensive, you're gonna have trouble in this world " - Prospero Linden
|
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
03-06-2008 07:31
Spock's dying words,
"Captain Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Captain Spock: Or the one. I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper. "
Which is utter and complete balderdash. The individual is supreme.
_____________________
I'm going to pick a fight
William Wallace, Braveheart
“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind”
Douglas MacArthur
FULL
|
|
Max Herzog
Cloudy
Join date: 9 Jul 2006
Posts: 1,073
|
03-06-2008 07:33
From: Chris Norse Spock's dying words,
"Captain Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Captain Spock: Or the one. I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper. "
Which is utter and complete balderdash. The individual is supreme. Senator McCarthy would have had Spock's guts for garters for that sort of talk. |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
03-06-2008 07:36
From: Chris Norse Spock's dying words,
"Captain Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Captain Spock: Or the one. I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper. "
Which is utter and complete balderdash. The individual is supreme. Hey! Easy on the knocking of "The Trek". Actually, I always felt Roddenberry was too much of a lefty socialist for my tastes as well. His Happy Utopian ideals were a bit much for me.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Pie Psaltery
runs w/scissors
Join date: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 987
|
03-06-2008 07:39
From: Brenda Connolly His Happy Utopian ideals were a bit much for me. Wait, are we talking about Roddenberry or Rosedale? |
|
Wulfric Chevalier
Give me a Fish!!!!
Join date: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 947
|
03-06-2008 07:39
From: Chris Norse Spock's dying words,
"Captain Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Captain Spock: Or the one. I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper. "
Which is utter and complete balderdash. The individual is supreme. Except as Will Travis found out, the more individuals on your side, the more likely you are to achieve victory. Of course it doesn't always work, April 21 1836 being a case in point. |
|
Damien1 Thorne
Registered User
Join date: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 4,877
|
03-06-2008 07:42
From: Pie Psaltery Wait, are we talking about Roddenberry or Rosedale? Both |
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
03-06-2008 07:44
From: Max Herzog Senator McCarthy would have had Spock's guts for garters for that sort of talk. Damn right he would have.
_____________________
I'm going to pick a fight
William Wallace, Braveheart
“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind”
Douglas MacArthur
FULL
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
03-06-2008 07:45
From: Max Herzog Senator McCarthy would have had Spock's guts for garters for that sort of talk. He he. Been awhile since we dug up Tail Gunner Joe. Excellent. I'll whip off my pants ad wave them in salute to you. Especially since a McCarthy discussion was primarily responsible for "The Group That Shall Not Be Named And Didn't Want To Pay The Licensing Fee For FIC."
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
03-06-2008 07:48
From: Wulfric Chevalier Except as Will Travis found out, the more individuals on your side, the more likely you are to achieve victory.
Of course it doesn't always work, April 21 1836 being a case in point. OK. I'm drawing a line in the sand on that one.......
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Stephen Wisent
Registered User
Join date: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 95
|
03-06-2008 07:48
Ok I'm back just for this and not the thread.. I promise.. I thought that Kirk said: "Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many" In "The Search for Spock".... which I always found quite touching when I watched it. I can't remember the exact situation, but I think he was putting the Enterprise at risk to save his friend. As I say, I don't know much about it, I just always thought that was a line from the film. From IMDB [last lines] Captain Spock: My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me. Kirk: You would have done the same for me. Captain Spock: Why would you do this? Kirk: Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many. Captain Spock: [pacing] I have been and ever shall be your friend. Kirk: Yes. Yes, Spock. Captain Spock: Ship, out of danger? Kirk: You saved the ship. You saved us all. Don't you remember? Captain Spock: Jim. Your name is Jim. Kirk: Yes. |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
03-06-2008 07:49
From: Pie Psaltery Wait, are we talking about Roddenberry or Rosedale? /me chokes on her bagel. He he he he.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Max Herzog
Cloudy
Join date: 9 Jul 2006
Posts: 1,073
|
03-06-2008 07:49
From: Brenda Connolly He he. Been awhile since we dug up Tail Gunner Joe. Excellent. I'll whip off my pants ad wave them in salute to you. Especially since a McCarthy discussion was primarily responsible for "The Group That Shall Not Be Named And Didn't Want To Pay The Licensing Fee For FIC." Before my time I thought it would be fun coming from a Brit living in Sweden. |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
03-06-2008 07:54
From: Stephen Wisent Ok I'm back just for this and not the thread.. I promise.. I thought that Kirk said: "Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many" In "The Search for Spock".... which I always found quite touching when I watched it. I can't remember the exact situation, but I think he was putting the Enterprise at risk to save his friend. As I say, I don't know much about it, I just always thought that was a line from the film. Oh don't go, this is keeping it alive till Friday. It actually started in "Wrath of Khan" when Spock sacrificed himself to save Enterprise, he said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In "Search for Spock", Kirk and company scarificed their careers, Kirk's son was killed and Enterprise was destroyed rescuing Spock because in that case the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Marianne McCann
Feted Inner Child
Join date: 23 Feb 2006
Posts: 7,145
|
03-06-2008 07:57
From: Stephen Wisent Ok I'm back just for this and not the thread.. I promise.. Jes hadda quote dat. WHy not just stick around, at this rate. From: Stephen Wisent I thought that Kirk said:
"Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"
In "The Search for Spock".... which I always found quite touching when I watched it. I believe Kirk was quoting Spock, who said the line in the previous film. I could be wrong. Mari
_____________________
"There's nothing objectionable nor illegal in having a child-like avatar in itself and we must assume innocence until proof of the contrary." - Lewis PR Linden "If you find children offensive, you're gonna have trouble in this world " - Prospero Linden
|
|
Rebecca Proudhon
(TM)
Join date: 3 May 2006
Posts: 1,686
|
03-06-2008 07:58
From: Chris Norse Spock's dying words,
"Captain Spock: Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...
Kirk: ...the needs of the few.
Captain Spock: Or the one. I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper. "
Which is utter and complete balderdash. The individual is supreme. But there was that further development where both sides are presented? Captain Spock: My father says that you have been my friend. You came back for me. Kirk: You would have done the same for me. Captain Spock: Why would you do this? Kirk: Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many. Captain Spock: [pacing] I have been and ever shall be your friend. |
|
Oryx Tempel
Registered User
Join date: 8 Nov 2006
Posts: 7,663
|
03-06-2008 09:29
From: Stephen Wisent *shrugs.. perhaps.. although to quote Captain Kirk (and no I'm not a trekkie ) The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many..  Wrong on BOTH counts... It was Spock, who said "Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Edit: Stephen's right about STIII.  |
|
Dakota Tebaldi
Voodoo Child
Join date: 6 Feb 2008
Posts: 1,873
|
03-06-2008 09:30
Guys, come on. The reason sexual ageplay is banned isn't because people are concerned about real kids being hurt, or the actors being encouraged or emboldened to take their virtual activities to RL. Some people may say that as an attempt at a logical rationale, but it's not the real truth, I think.
The fact is, the proclivities of those who enjoy the thought of sex with children - i.e., pedophiles - are considered so absolutely repugnant and revolting to everybody else at large, that people simply hate to see them (the pedos) achieve any sort of satisfaction of their desires, even if that satisfaction is gained using a virtual proxy. Pedos are so incredibly ICK, even some people who are otherwise ultimate champions of freedom of expression can't bring themselves to do anything helpful or accomodating to them.
Unfortunately, I can't agree with the notion that banning sexual ageplay in Second Life is "thought policing". Thoughts are inside your head, and nobody can see them. Once you create or do something - in SL or somewhere else - that other people can see or interact with, or that otherwise causes some kind of change in the environment, that's an ACTION. You've acted on those thoughts.
Pedos are allowed to join in SL, they're even perfectly allowed to think pedo thoughts while in SL. They just can't DO pedo things in SL. See how that works? It's actions, not thoughts, that are being "policed".
Ugh, I don't think I've ever used the word "pedo" so many times before.....drat, I just said it again!
/me goes to take a bath.
|
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
03-06-2008 09:41
I think Dakota is pretty much right about that.
The protecting children is a rationalization. The reason that these exposes exist and things like this are banned is the repugnance factor.
With ACTUAL child porn, child protection is a huge factor.
The indistinguishable clause on virtual child porn it is also a huge factor - because they need to be able to protect children without the images getting lost in a sea of imitation photos.
But the cartoon / SL type stuff it is the repugnance factor.
|
|
Trout Recreant
Public Enemy No. 1
Join date: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 4,873
|
03-06-2008 10:04
From: Oryx Tempel Wrong on BOTH counts... It was Spock, who said "Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Edit: Stephen's right about STIII. Spock: needs of many...blah, blah blah Kirk: (thinking to himself)I'd like to get my hands on that Uhura. Oh man.. the stuff I'd do to her. Scotty: I'm given' er all she's got, Cap'n, but I'm pretty drunk and I canna read the dials! (falls over and starts to snore) Darth Vader enters stage right: DAMN! Wrong set. Sorry guys. Hey, anyone want to go get a latte later? Ron Howard: CUT! Geesh. Why did I agree to direct this dog.
_____________________
From: Jerboa Haystack
A Trout Rating (tm) is something to cherish. To flaunt and be proud of. It is something all women should aspire to obtain!
|