Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

My location and blog.

The avatars do not move themselves.. they do not trigger a poseball just from your walking by it (at least not normally, I get the impression that there are situations if you are using a RLV where they can). It comes down to the definition of 'performer' and the intent of the law, and that is what is being challenged in the courts as I understand it.

Your opinion has some merit but it is no more a legal decision than my opinion is.



That depends on what the precise record keeping requirements are (I have not looked that aspect up in detail). Proof that a recognized third party verification service has passed the person may be considered sufficient, and Aristotle may do record keeping.

There is no intent on my part to brush off such questions, but you did not ask those questions a momment ago, you merely told me I was brushing off the questions. The first of those two I have answered numerous times in this thread. Given that you do not remember that, are you sure you have not unintentionally been brushing me off due to a lack of objectivity?

Umm... unless I give my location and maintain a blog I am not a 'real' SL player? I can give my location to anyone I flag as friend in game and they will see my location any time they choose to look. Why would I need to advertize my location to strangers?

Anyone looking at my profile would already know my name so could IM me if need be, so again, so I really do not understand.

You still don't "get" that it doesn't apply to SL for the following reasons (as a minimum):

No real images of people are involved.

Animated polygonal models are not movies of real people performing sex acts.

As such, upheld or not, it STILL won't apply to SL.



Nowhere does it say anything about keeping records for accessing adult content, especially COMPUTER-GENERATED CONTENT.

In fact, the rest of the statute says nothing to the effect of what you are claiming, hence:

2251. Sexual Exploitation of Children -- nope
2251A. Selling or Buying of Children -- O.o Uhh.. nope.
2252. Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors -- nada
2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography -- again, nope
2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet -- not applicable to SL at all
2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet -- has to do with enticement, which is already against the ToS, and has nothing to do with age verification
2253. Criminal forfeiture -- talks about what happens AFTER you get caught violating, but that's getting ahead of ourselves
2254. Civil forfeiture -- more of the same
2255. Civil remedy for personal injuries -- *yawn* are we there yet?
2256. Definitions for chapter -- OK.. not relevant at all
2257. Record keeping requirements -- already discussed
2257A. Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct -- probably the closest thing so far, but do note the words "PERFORMER" and the clause "of an actual human being" in reference to "computer-manipulated image" so, again, nope.
2258. Failure to report child abuse -- irrelevant to the discussion
2259. Mandatory restitution -- after-the-fact; irrelevant
2260. Production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States -- only remotely related to the age/sexplay topic, but even then, the act clearly stipulates an actual minor being involved. Even still, irrelevant to the discussion.
2260A. Penalties for registered sex offenders -- irrelevant

So, please show us what part of the Act you think applies here. I don't see it, personally.

Well, not directly, no, but anyone can link through your blog links and profiles and see that information.

The only question is whether that is really you, or someone who is a lot like you that sounds like you.

I think they're actualy bringing much innovations in.

They are on their way, to make genitals as private properties obsolote. They work on a juridification of genital transactions.

And they're bringing in the innovation, that an intimate relation will be not longer an act of two, but an act of four persons:

On one side of the bed will stand an attorney and on the other side of the bed will stand a Linden-inspector.

They both do then a protocol wich goes afterwards to a fundamentalistic anonymous rating agency.

After that, the couple will be forced to move to Ursula or brought to court.

This is why the Lindens have many guest rooms in their real apartments and houses.

They have real life Linden - sex only under strict supervision by 4 attorneys, wich are documenting each step of the act. And the attorneys have whistles in their mouths, to be ready to give signals if a sexual practic could be seen as too offensive.

So, the innovation of the team around Mark Kingdon is in summary the following one:

Linden Lab brought together again wich was long time separated: sex, fear and the perspective of forensic/juristic consequences for the protagonists.

If that is not innovative, I wouldn't know what could be more innovative.

Hahahahaha

Yes, Nany.

The sooner people stop biting at his troll bait the better.

then you should be able to easily figure out the profile thing


well, in 2 months you haven't managed it so I would think it's highly unlikely, don't you?



nope, I just know enough of human nature that whilst the professional classes do like dipping into the various online zoos, they rarely stay. Forums, whilst a semi substitute for actually experiencing a platform, are not really much chop.

Now considering that you haven't even been inworld long enough to go through the newbie rituals, it's pretty safe to say your account wasn't created because you had a serious interest in sl. ergo there had to be some other reason and some kind of tie to LL is indicated here - unless of course you're a journalilst looking for something sensational to misconstrue and get a little publicity with - not unheard of.

Finding these forums is a feat, and even bothering to spend any time of them is something that the majority of sl inhabitatants don't do. The conversation may be better in here than inworld simply because there's time to compose and digest but if you don't understand the nuances, then people will get tired of trying to correct your misunderstandings.

good luck with that

The statute SPECIFICALLY STATES what it means by "performers", and unless your interpretation of English (albeit legalese-tainted) is radically different from the rest of the world, you'll find it hard to equate someone "portraying" an avatar in a virtual world the same as being a "performer" in a film. Someone who is here of their own volition, acting to sate their own needs via the experiences, is NOT a "performer".

Not to mention that the whole point of the act is to prevent EXPLOITATION of minors for pornography. It's a serious stretch to try to extrapolate that intent to "keeping kids out of SL". Well, unless you think the Lindens are trafficking in children for their underground brothel, that is.



No one here is presenting legal opinions, even the lawyers know better than that. However, the law is generally comprehensible by lay people, and most people who bother to read and try to understand "get it" pretty easily. The problem comes in when people try to twist the words and use loopholes to violate the spirit and intent of the law (or to bolster a failing argument >.> ).

Anyway, you're right; it's just our opinions; what difference will be shown is in the common understanding arising out of the discussion and what the courts end up ruling down the road.

Until then, I maintain that the cited law is irrelevant to Adult Content changes in SL.

The intent of the act is to extend to the original act to additional media, including animations.

Even if the image may not relate to the human manipulating the image (i.e. choosing its actions) as long as there is a human doing so, there is a human doing so, and if they are underage, even though there is no physical contact it does not mean that their engaging in such acts is considered age appropriate. If they were mastrubating in front of a camera, there would be a similar lack of physical contact. The intent is to try to stop that kind of thing regardless of the image quality at the other end. An avatar is still a human image, and the child is not manipulating that image randomly but in specific ways.

And you stopped your quote at 'actual human being,' but the list does not end there.

To quote the act:



'or other matter that' is pretty inclusive, and being after the 'actual human being' clause is not restricted by it. It is also not clear that 'of an actual human being' modifies anything other than 'digitally- or computer manipulated image of', especially since that would be redundant with 'digital image,' the item just before it in the list. Personally I would take that as the distinction between a converted analog image or a human and a purely digital image. The 'other matter that' clause is almost certainly under challenge since that could unintentionally include a lot of nature documentaries and in its current form I would expect to be struck down and/or amended. The intent though is inclusiveness. It does not say that the end image has to in any way resemble the performer.

At least you did look at the act, though, wihch is more than most in this discussion have been willing to do.

I'm not biting his troll bait, I am biting him.

Trolls are tasty!

no, i think he's just trying to be disingenuous by deliberately misunderstanding you

nice pic btw

I think I responded to the rest of your post adequately in other response, but by definition, a child's doing anything of their own volition is not a defense. Right or wrong, children are not considered not able to give consent to such experiences. If that was not the case, such laws would not exist in any form.

Then you should have no problem providing relevant citations than pushing a button that requests a particular pre-recorded animated sequence be played constitutes a performance. That would mean that you're an actor when you browse Youtube.

So now you know what research you need to undertake to support your assertion.

It was not meant as rhetorical, I really meant 'what sort of information do you feel someone needs to have in their profile to be considered 'engaged?'

Not trying to troll...

you're a quick learner, go inworld and you should have your answer in about 30 minutes

I do see what you are saying, but there is a difference between doing so for an audience and doing so just to trigger your own viewing. There is also a difference between playing a movie and effectively creating one choosing each action on an action by action basis. The person watching youtube is not likely providing vocals (not even gagged vocals) for others listening.

Also the act is under challenge, and the question you bring up is likely one of the concerns with the legislation. If the act was completely cut and dried with no questionable sections, there would not have been grounds for a challenge.

And no, I cannot provide citations. Can you provide any contrary?

What do you expect to find in a room someone's living in, that you wouldn't find in a hotel room? Some sign of lived-in-ness, a personal touch? Paintings on the wall that weren't bought by the yard? I'm not sure exactly what the people asking for a "real profile" are looking for, but maybe that kind of analogy can help. All I was suggesting was that whatever-it-is... you don't have to put personally identifiable information in the profile to make it seem "lived in".

I have been in world longer than 30 minutes.. is there some reason I cannot get a simple answer that would take any of you 30 seconds? Any of you could have simply answered the question rather than continually telling me off, yet I am accused of trolling?

Maybe SL is not for me, then.. I tend to be a fairly private person in that regard. I can be very social but it is not my nature to advertise myself. I am not entirely sure why doing so should be neccessary. No matter what I put in there it would only show I was not lazy or shy about a profile, not that I am 'real.'

Opposition to confirming identities, but unless something is written in a profile, be it real or fiction, you are considered to have less of an identity?

I think you have an exaggerated idea of the capabilities of Second Life. Possibly Linden Labs would be better off restricting access to voice to verified accounts, because once you eliminate voice it's not much different to this: .

I'm not the one trying to prove my position here.

Alex and Nany,
Methinks of my granny,
Knitting in front of the tube.
Clicking away,
Her teeth on a tray,
Cursing the six o'clock News.