YAY!!! Lindenlab says: AV Child Porn is considered not to be child pornography

It's funnier if you add an extra "U".

I dunno. I do know that if someone sues, they expose themselves to a lot of publicity, without which the lawsuit would go nowhere.

With over 100,000 residents, many in the USA, and so many of them so attached to SL that they'd consider it an attack on SL on the whole (which it would turn out to be), that's asking for a beat-down.

I'll crack a few teeth in the name of freedom, myself.

"It's not child porn because [no children] are involved."

Wit is overrated.

Doctoring it up would be the illegal act.

No, actually it's not child porn because of this little clause:

(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;

It is not illegal because of that little clause. It is not child porn because of the lack of children.

Actually, that's not what Ginsu Linden is saying:


Section 2256( reads as follows (emphasis added):

------
( “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.

That's great. Laws are passed that like to define things in all sorts of crazy ways. I like definitions that are not so subject to change suddenly.

In the end, it's not illegal and not a problem in SL.

Not illegal and not against the TOS, yes. I think the question of if it is a problem is still an open one.

By the legal definition of child porn, if our avatars suddenly became extremely realistic looking, all of a sudden ageplay in sl would be considered illegal, regardless of if it's real or not. Interesting.

No, it still has to be "indstinguishable". Since SL's format, by nature of what it is, is clearly virtual, I think the case could very easily be made that no live "broadcast" of SL data would count as indistinguishable.

A preserved screenshot, maybe.

Nope, not even then, unless SL was being used to produce movies or screenshots being viewed outside of SL. It would have to be realistic enough that a reasonable person couldn't distinguish it from the real thing. If it was being viewed within the SL client it would be obvious it was computer generated no matter how realistic it looked.

Is it right in front of you, disrupting your gameplay?

Unless it's causing an actual problem with gameplay for someone, it's not a problem.

And Ingrid, no. The avatars, textures, method of construction, etc would have to be realistic to the degree it was indistinguishable. Until that technology is at least 2 generations old (which we're not even close to having it), you won't see it in a multiplayer venue.

Edit: And you'd technically have to be able to jack in neurologically so that the game itself was indistinguishable from RL.

I see your point. But then again, child porn pictures on the net are clearly pictures and not live and in front of you, and it is still illegal. It's a fine line and probably quite subjective.

Suicide!

I was thinking about that, and it occured to me that even were we to start importing scans of our RL skins, because of the nature of SL's mesh (fairly polygonal looking, obvious elbow and knee joints, etc), you would still be able to distinguish it from the flesh and blood.

But eventually it's going to happen, whether or not SL is still around, and we will see avatars that are virtually indistinguishable from real ones. Which gives me another thought - we are all aware when we sign up, that the avatars are not real, so it is distinguishable to us, the residents. (But then there is the issue of people putting up sites with SL snapshots or video of indistinguishable from the flesh child sex).

It will be interesting to see how things unfold, if and when that day comes, and if I am not dust in the wind yet.

Don't worry about it Kris, its just typical Fundamentalist double speak. Don't give them the time of day, I say.

I've got some real respect for skin-makers in this game... some of them do really impressive work, given the constraints of the technology. I've yet to see anything that I could confuse for a real person, though... not even Chip Midnight's skins are that good, and I'd just about freakin' marry him for his skins.

It's not really a fine line at all. Anything obviously computer generated isn't illegal by the current law (Protect act of 2003). I quoted the relevant bits in one of the other 57 threads.

Not really subjective at all.

The reason photos online are different is because, since they are not occurring as events in real-time, they may be an accurate record of an actual event where a minor was abused or exploited. That's also why a very well doctored SL screenshot of ageplay would be illegal, both in its existence and the act of modifying it to appear as such an actual record.

Something happening in real-time is clearly not an accurate record of an actual RL event where a child is being exploited or abused. Even if a child were being exploited during the online act, to get technical about it, the actual event would prevent the interaction in SL from functioning properly as a representation of it. It would be purely textual: this is the sort of thing the FBI DOES hunt down. In fact, the FBI wants that sort of practice to continue because it makes a bust rather easy. It's how they did all those IRC busts in the '90's that curbed such behavior dramatically. Rather than a crime itself, it was evidence that led to the crime so it could be stopped.

Is anyone you disagree with a Fundamentalist, Magnum?

That would not be the claim I am making.

My concern is a purely practical one; if Second Life becomes thought of as a place with a lot of "those sorts of people" it might lead to the game being shut down because of either financial or legal problems. Or worse, to me, would be the adoption of a far more restrictive TOS in an attempt quiet the complaints.

Those remain possible problems and thus the question is still an open one.

I came over to SL on recommendation from fellow players of Sociolotron.

I'd wager a large portion of SL's indirect marketing appeal is that you can be "that sort of person" and hear no grief for it.

This clearly no longer true.