UK folks, take care: new laws

Probably many UK people will be aware of this, but there are some new laws being passed in the UK that may affect Second Life.

1. A law that has _already been passed_ by Parliament (Criminal Justice Bill 200, but that will come to effect in January 2009, bans the possession of "extreme pornographic images", which covers or may cover many BDSM-related images. Images must be realistic to be illegal so computer-generated images are not covered. However, some sex/Gor/BDSM areas use realistic photographs on textures that could break the law, and by seeing them on SL you "possess" them because they are copied into the cache. Consent (or otherwise) by the people in the image is irrelevant. Also, images extracted from a non-pornographic source may be deemed pornographic if the extraction was for the purpose of sexual arousal (ie, watching The World Is Not Enough or Casino Royale aren't illegal, but if frames from the torture scenes from either of those films were extracted and displayed in a sexual context, they would be).

2. A law that is currently under consideration would bring the UK into line with Germany with regard to illegality of computer generated (or drawn) images of child pornography.

Only law 1 has been fully drafted, and the only "unawareness" defense states that you may only plead unawareness if a) the images weren't sent as the result of a request, and b) you had no reason to suspect that the image might show such content. This means that from January 2009, any UK based resident who teleports to a sex or BDSM themed area will risk prosecution if any extreme images are displayed on textures in that area (by teleporting they have made a request, they should certainly suspect such an area could contain those images).

Law 2 would mean that, as in Germany, that viewing sexual activity between child avatars would be illegal. It is likely that the same unawareness defense would be used, so it will be necessary for UK residents to avoid all areas where such things might possibly happen. Since the law can take account of mass media broadcasts in determining suspicion, this may make it nearly impossible for UK residents to use child avatars at all.

Also, since legal commentators have frequently referred to "Second Life" as a single entity, there is a danger that a person could be deemed to have "made a request while suspecting illegal images to be available" simply by logging on to SL!

How do they plan to police this? Second Life is probably the least of anyone's worries. There are countless websites with the type of porn you've listed available right on the web, and those images get cached as well. As far as caching of images goes, it's simple enough to clear caches, and to go the extra mile, use a wipe-info tool to overwrite deleted data. It amazes me how politicians write laws that are nearly impossible to police. Most Americans feel safe from this sort of attack on freedoms of expression, yet, unfortunately, America is increasingly becoming a socialistic state with politicians who think it's their job to tell us how to live our lives.

I'm sorry, but there are a lot of people that are not "using" child avatars in a way that would concern this law. I'm not going to say that I personally take the high road on this subject. But, please don't paint child avatars with such a broad brush to assume that a pornography law applies to the entire crowd. (>_<

_I_ don't..

But the problem is, the law might.

If you've seen many broadcasts, they've said that "Second Life" is full of child pornography. Not "parts of Second Life". All of it.

This means that an old judge who has never played SL might well rule that, if you log into SL at all, you should have had "cause to suspect" that there was child pornography there - and therefore if you see any, you can't claim unawareness.

In your own words...
In my mind... Innocent child avatars cannot be assumed to have pornographic roles. (>_<

I agree on the child porn law, any images of sexual activity between children is very wrong, drawn, generated or real its all just as bad.

but the violent porn rule is waaay wrong. this country is going down hill fast and in 20 years "free speach" will not exist

The flaw with that reasoning is that it isn't up to an old judge to make such decisions. That's what the jury does. And juries don't make decisions based on news items - they make their decisions according to the evidence in the trial.

I think the idea of logging into SL being a risk in itself is a non-starter. It could be that individuals who know nothing except a few things that they've heard somewhere would be initially inclined to wrong judgements, but that's just their first thoughts. A bit of discussion would reveal all and nobody would be charged or convicted due to logging into SL.

A lot of conjecture and speculation I think. It's a bit early to staqrt ringing the hysteria bell. I'm stuck on the "Non Pornographic images used for sexual stimulation". How does anyone know what image is stimulating except the person themselves? Who's going to make that determination?

It becomes impossible for UK residents to use child avatars because, stripped of their unawareness defense, they can't risk visiting any child-themed builds - even innocent ones - because they can't guarantee a griefer won't start having sex there.

You may be right but it is the UK where this is happening not America ?

The question is if you can log into SL and still claim to "have no reason to suspect" that you may, during your session, be downloading computer-generated child porn or photographic extreme pornography.

There's no question that it won't be illegal just to log in, but if logging in means giving up your unawareness defense, then essentially you have to wrap yourself up in cotton wool and not visit any unknown builds, because if you just happen to see something sexual - even in an area where it wasn't supposed to be - then you're liable.

Images are only illegal if they are "explicit and realistic", depict a life being threatened, an act lilely to cause serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals or sex with corpses or animals and "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real".

BDSM images will not be covered unless they involve injury to specific parts of the body, and nothing is illegal unless it looks real. Most SL images do not look real. In fact it seems that this need for reality is precisely the reason they are now considering banning drawings etc. of children involved in sexual activity because they have realised the existing laws won't catch such images.

Prosecution also requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (the top national prosecution official for non-UK readers).

It is a defence to show that the person being injured consented to what was done to them, unless it would be impossible to consent in law - which would probably require a lot more than a whipping, cropping or the use of nipple clamps. Consent is a defence, Yumi, see Section 66 of the Act.

The law on child sex images, if it happens, clearly would apply to SL images. But it remains to be seen what defences would be available.

It's either socialists on one side or the fascists on the other. The fascists have been in power for the last 8 years. Don't get confused, although they are closely related.

Don't worry. Some headline grabbing political hack will probably latch on to this here, soon enough.

Are you admitting that you use your kid av in sexual situations?

The judge directs the jury on the law, the jury simply decides on the facts and whether, following the judge's directions, those facts constitute the offence.

But I agree completely on the second point. Logging into SL no more makes you likely to see pornographic images than opening your browser does. You might not have much of a defence if you TP'd to "The Naughty Little Girls Spanking Club" but go to Inner Child and you don't expect to see child porn. If someone was ageplaying there it would not be something you had reason to suspect you would see.

Since in 18 months I have only 2 or 3 times seen child pornography (and the only absolutely clear example was pictures in an "art" gallery not avatars having sex) I think I have a very good case that I have no reason to suspect that I would download such images. Furthermore LL's ban on such images would go a long way to showing that they are sufficiently uncommon that in general being in SL would not expose you to them.

That is true. However, if you look at statements made by politicians about SL, they tend to treat SL as a single unit, which they generally didn't do about "the internet".



That's true. Acts of BDSM performed in SL would not be illegal.

However, many BDSM themed areas - even areas that are just social areas where there are no actual acts performed - have textures on the walls showing real-life photographs of BDSM acts, which *do* look real (and often are). The fact that you didn't teleport to the area in order to look at the image is irrelevant - you still possess it.

Also, the law is highly ambiguous. As an example, it's been suggested that an image of "face sitting" could be deemed extreme, because someone is being prevented from breathing and thus their life is in danger. (In fact, it was images showing erotic asphyxia that provoked the law to be passed in the first place - look up "Jane Longhurst" on Wikipedia.) It's been jokingly suggested that an image of an older man having ordinary sex with a young woman could be illegal too because of the risk of him having a heart attack, but I think that is still a joke



It isn't useful in this case. See Clause 66.2.a: consent is only a defense if the person claiming the defense is _in_ the image. This was a clause added to prevent real-life BDSM players having to destroy their personal photo albums.

There are images in SL already that break UK obscenity laws, I haven't heard of anyone being prosecuted over walking past such an image by a UK court.

Because the existing Obscene Publications Act in the UK only covered _distribution_, not _possession_.

Using that same logic, I should never wear shoes again because I could die.

It is possible, though unlikely, that a scorpion could decided to get into my shoe. It is documented that they like warm, dark places, and an overturned shoe could be perfect. Nevermind that it is beyond rare for a scorpion to be in this area -- someone could have had one as a pet and it escaped. Scorpion venom is toxic and can lead to death.

Therefore, no shoes for me.

The ting is, all of these reply on some big hypotheticals. There would have to be a scorpion. It would have had to get loose, and get into my home. It woudl have to choose to get into my shoe. I would have to put it one while it is in there. I would have to be stung. I would have to get a bad enough dose that I could not be saved by any antivenom.

By the same token, the arugment that "no UK residents could use a cvhild avatar without breaking the law" becomes as much hysteria. There are a *lot* of suppositions on a law that hasn't even passed. Given, too, that said law exists in Germany and there *are* still child avatars who log in fron Germany, it seems unlikely that the UK child avvies (of which there seem to be many more) will be going anywhere.

Mari

Actually, no, I'm not. But I'm also not saying that I'm against it. (=_=)y

You're misrepresenting things by comparing a common act that's essential in real life (wearing shoes) to an extremely niche act that nobody really needs to do (playing an SL child).

I'm not saying that no UK people can play child avatars without breaking the law - I'm saying that they can't play child avatars without the _risk_ of breaking a law, and a very nasty law at that. Given that, for many, it will be a better bet not to play a child avatar.

They certainly did, and still do on occasions, talk about the internet as if it's a single entity. And the politicians have had their say, it's down to the Courts now.



But it is a defence for you to show that you did not know the image you would see was an extreme pornographic image, and if you did not know the image was there how could you know? That isn't a complete defence by any means to the "cause to suspect" point, but since many adult areas in SL do not display extreme pornographic images it goes some way to establishing the defence. You also have a defence if you did not request the image, and I don't agree that entering an area "requests" all the textures in the area, since even when fully rezzed you will not be able to see all of them, and if you do not keep the image for an unreasonable time. Clearing cache at the end of the session might well be enough for that.

I also don't think the facesitting argument would stand up in Court, there's plenty of material available to show that there is generally no intent to theaten life, nor any great risk, nor does it look like an asphyxiation attempt. There's also the point that there was no expert testimony in the Coutts trial on the risks of erotic breathplay, unsurprisingly since it was a central plank of his defence that Ms Longhurst died accidentally - expert opinion showing it was not actually dangerous would have destroyed his defence.




Good point.

I still don't think however that most of us have anything much to worry about. Laws of this sort are primarily passed to make politicians look like they are doing something, and tend not to result in much actual legal action afterwards. I'm certainly not worried, especially not about anything I might download from SL.

All they have to do is not to participate in sexual ageplay, and TP away from anyone who does, and there is no risk.