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

It seems so difficult for people to be rational when their emotions take over and there's nothing like the thought of child abuse that brings out extreme emotions. That's how I think this subject will keep coming back and maybe get bigger.

I'm repeating Siggy's eloquent post because it sums up the issue for me.

Considering I only hear about it on the forums, it's quite true.

Outside the forums, I went to an ageplay island trying to find a specific item and was hit on by a "12 year old".

Plus, your home is still your own home. Unless you're vocal about what you're doing in places where cultures mix, you could be a pinnacle-of-the-community business owner and be secretly pounding away at your partner and her "daughter" behind closed doors.

I adored that.

I'd surmise the concepts here are the same ones that keep Anne Rice's "Sleeping Beauty" trilogy selling copies, in which Beauty is about 15 and the kiss is replaced by her brutal rape, followed by years of servitude and sexual enslavement of a most grotesque fashion, often involving other minors ranging from the very young to the nearly "legal".

Yes but I'm talking about the stuff that is NOT obviously computer generated.

Yeah but the buttplug with the authentic horse tail is what kept me coming back.

Hey! That's stricter than TSO! On TSO we had the love bed.

coco

smart alek.

I enjoy a good debate, I admit.

An impossibility in Second Life until the neural interface is perfected (aka DataJack for you Shadowrunners out there) and the game appeals to all 5 physical senses. The very nature of a realtime environment that requires a tool with which to interact with it means it's all obviously computer generated.

Good point. I worry because it seems like I am hearing about it on the forums increasingly more and I assume that this reflects a rise in complaints and harassment in world but I really have no idea.

I'm going to post this now while the thread is open.

I just ran across maybe the second or third suggestion that Aeolus - a mild-mannered individual - be banned, because of what he has said here.

Do those of you who are calling for it realize how intolerant that is? How creepy and evil?

We do not - or should not - ban people from a game for expressing their opinions in a respectful way, however much some might disagree with those opinions.

Think about that. Because that is what is really shocking here. And dangerous.

Do you believe in freedom of speech or not? Or just for some?

coco

You'll notice that all forum software follows the same format.

So if someone would just rename "Forums" "Bitchfest" and copyright the forum software to require that be part of the name of every forum branch, you'd have a much more accurate description of what a forum is really worth before you even start posting .

I just like the horsehair buttplug reference I made earlier.

Have you asked him if he has been? And why? otherwise this is just speculation really.

If he was banned, it was for personal attacks and had nothing to do with his opinion.

If he is banned or suspended it would be based solely on his personal actions and his failure to heed repeated and exhaustive warnings, not his opinions.

Ironically it's exactly what he is doing.... banning child avs - and being generally intolerant of how others wish to spend their Second Lives...

Going so far as to label them as child pornographers.

Now THAT'S pretty creepy and evil.

I believe in exiling people who call for restrictions of the speech of others but I am not going to suggest it because I do not want to go.

Asked him if he has been what, Ingrid?

coco

So what if 3 people said it Coco?

Will you please stop trying to police other's thoughts?

Pretty please?

I realize grabbing onto anything you consider evidence that there may be what you refer to as "evil" out there, and then running it up the flagpole is your game, but lord! Do you really think LL will ban him for his opinions because 3 people said to ban him? If you do, I have no clue why you would support a company that would do that, by participating in their virtual world.

Nolan, you certainly take one thing and go to town with it.

Do you realize you just said that others have the right to express their opinions, but I don't?

coco

I think we've hit that point between Nolan and Coco where we should remember what arguing on the internet typically is....like the Special Olympics.

No matter who wins, we're all retarded...

No, I asked.

You said "we don't", in the format of an authority figure's imperative.

I am not talking about "one thing".

I am talking about any little thing you get your hands on that makes you believe some people behave evilly (and from there extrapolate the existence of a sinister and unfair undercurrent which affects LL decisions).

Furthermore, I am not the one railing about free speech, and then issuing demands that people don't say something that I don't like. If someone wants to call for a ban, it's perfectly within the limits of forum guidelines, and therefore covered under the limits of the "free speech" that LL affords us. So what you've shown us, is that you're for free speech, if that speech is that of someone you are defending (or yourself), but if it's speech you find less than tasteful on a personal level, you want it stopped. Personal tastes have no place in freedom of speech debates.

I'll step off the bus here. You can keep driving it right into that same chasm of insinuation and suspicion for eternity, in the end it doesn't change anything, and neither do my pleas for you to quit blowing every little thing out of proportion. That which the person you are defending here was entirely complicit in, so it's no small wonder.

Does that include libeling them with the label of pedophile? Accusing them of child pornography for merely disagreeing or for simply restating both LL policy and the relevant portions of american law? Does their opinions somehow give then the right and authority to thumb their nose at the rules and guidelines of the forums and repeatedly break those same said rules at a whim and despite repeated warnings? My, I had no idea merely holding a opinion gave one the right to do absolutely as they pleased without regard of anything save their guiding and apparently very high opinion of themselves.

Seems creepy and evil to me, in my opinion.