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

Like someone else pointed out that couldn't apply to anything happening in real time on SL. As for stuff created in SL and distributed elsewhere, holding LL liable for it would be like holding Adobe liable for anything created in Photoshop. (Forgive me if I missed your point since I'm just kinda skimming).

Let me make this clear:

1. I don't agree with the people against ageplay in SL. I understand their concern, and I understand completely where they are coming from.

2. I agree totally with LL's position on it. They are correct in their assessment of the situation, and in their understanding of the legalities involved.

That doesn't mean you try to run him out of town on a rail, or call for his banning. Don't do it. This individual is a valuable resident of SL.

Keep up this sort of things on the forums, and you will be seeing more and more people go to the media, and one of the things they will be talking about is the fact that they have been banned for their opinions in a game that supposedly values free speech.

coco

And if people go to the media, then people will swarm onto SL to evangelize, and that's always bad.

I hate Church Lady.

You really do have a reading comprehension issue don't you?

If he is banned, suspended, or more likely even warned it will be because he has broken the forum rules, repeatedly, after repeated warnings. Not because of his opinions but because apparently like you he thinks that merely by the virtue of having a opinion it gave him the right to make repeated personal attacks and ignore the forum rules.

That little fact not sinking in yet?

If not, its not surprising given you've a demonstrable and very long history of turning a blind eye to calling out bad behaviour when it suits your interest. If one is incapable of following the rules for whatever reason, then one doesn't need to be here, media threats be damned.

Yes yes yes a thousand times yes!

The only thing that is important is what is legal and fair. Can you believe that, even though it is legal, the government let's you have bang pow murder guns? and that you can go out and buy heart kill fries?

Making up a name for something using hyperbole is lots of fun, but it still detracts from an essential issue: truth. It is not true, to my knowledge, that child porn is common in SL. In fact, child porn and allusions to child porn in popular media and on the internet are quite common elsewhere and much more easily accessible in other places.

(I changed my mind about the legality of bang pow murder guns when I moved to a place where bears outnumber people. Rifles are good sometimes. )

Plus, it's not even new. Remember Lolita.

coco

Do you actually mean to say that you've seen avatars on SL and could not tell if that was a picture of a real person or a cartoon? Really?

Because if that's the case, if your grip on reality is so shakey, maybe this isn't the place for you. Just sayin.

Part of the problem is that he's calling it "AV Child porn" in the first place.

Because for their to be porn created, that means that the participants are being called pornographers.

His statement implies that all ageplayers are child pornographers. Thus the continued bruhaha.

You have earned my affection for your use of the word bruhaha. Carry on

I prefer to refer to it as the continued BWAHAHA.

Aeolus has been calm and reasonable recently, yes. He had some interesting moments, though. I personally found at least one of his posts highly offensive, though... from his recent behavior, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was posting while very upset and his sense of propriety crashed.

"some" seems not to understand that in this , what our laws seek to punish is the act of child abuse and molestation, not it's though, picturing or any other thing.

Like Nash San I am getting off the Bus here and refuse to ride along any more.

Well LL made the right call. In SL the kids are theoretically screened at the doorway. Thus all the members on the grid can be presumed to be adults and the rules regarding adult behaviour apply. If to consenting adults want to have sex as tweedle dum and and tweedle dee, they are allowed to. Period.

If this bothers you, go to a pg section of the grid where no sexual activity will take place. If this bothers you on principle well you can leave. Principles are damned expensive hobbies.

The person in question posted a message in this thread with links to FBI offices, inviting people to make complaints - complaints which would be in effect against Second Life. This seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to destroy Linden Lab, and I would have expected it to be a bannable offence, in the same way that crashing the grid would be.

I must say, the person (whose name I can never remember and I can't be bothered to look it up) seems to me to be more like a troll than a serious poster, and is using all the tried and tested techniques of trolldom.

I am very suspicious of this person - aelyus or bella, or whatever his name - and my own personal opinion is that his opinions are not sincerely held. I don't know what his motives are in posting on this forum, but the word 'agenda' seems to spring readily to mind.

The depiction of a digital image, meaning that which looks exactly like a child, (Point out ANY AV that can pull that off with this kind of realism), and that anyone can mistaken as being a minor. Since you have to be 18 or older to play on the main grid, I'd assume that neither AV, reguardless of height or appearance of age, is a minor.

Now, if I were to see a photo/video that had been uploaded of someone having sex with a minor, then I'd report it in a heartbeat. But there is no way in heck I'd confuse two child-like AV's as being minors. None.

Whew... what are we up to... 16 pages? And, thanks to Indgrid for actually referencing the laws regarding child pornography, versus the many emotional and personal opinions contained in 16 pages of thread posts.

I refer to US Code under Title 18. While some could argue, 'SL is just a game and Avatars are just cartoons'... It would only take some over zealous District Attorney to try and make a case of "apparent" child pornography occurring in SL - particularly if there were graphic evidence that could be obtained and used by prosecutors to meet the test of "exploitation".

It is also important to note that Child-to-Adult, or Child-to-Child, sexual activity is not the basis of the prohibition. The US Code speaks only to the visual depiction of a child (or an apparent minor) engaging in sexual activity.

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

In particular, the following language...."or computer generated image"....it goes on with the very open ended phrase.. "or appears to be...." and is therefore open to interpretation in regard to the computer imagery and/or the very explicit avatar interaction capabilites on the SL platform. Is the SL platform a "website" as referenced in the statute? It is definitley "web-based". So, SL may be beginning to meet the tests and definitions contained in Title 18.

********
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:

"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, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

Etc...

*************

I guess the key points are. If you are going to "depict" child pornography on the SL platform as defined by law (even if you ARE an adult in real life), you best keep it very private and definitely do not take and share or otherwise distribute pictures that could possibly meet the definition of 'exploitation'.

I also believe, local, state, and federal prosecutors have much larger fish to fry than go after some middle-aged sicko guy portraying himself as a 10 year old girl engaging in sexual activity while in SL. And, I also ask myself, "Why?" But to each his own...

As SL management are often quoted... "we are breaking new ground here".

*blinks*

K wait, the question was what's wrong with nipples (nude body parts) in a TEEN area, a place where 13 year olds are hanging out???? This from the person who got so upset at the mere possiblilty that adults playing children in a sexual context could somehow affect ACTUAL children? I don't let my 14 year old daughter watch movies with nudity in them, why would i let her play a game with more nudity in it than she would see undressing her barbie doll? (actually I dont allow my daughter to play even in the teen grid as, unless i choose to be looking over her shoulder the entire time, i have no way of trusting the content)

I don't mean this to be a slam in any way, i'm honestly stating my view and hoping you'll take a look at your own mindset. Perhaps your priorities are a bit skewed?

1. I can say the same.... I don't agree that it's even remotely dangerous in comparison the numerous real dangers we as parents have to be constantly on the lookout for, however I can understand why it would make some people react emotionally. (Although frankly since I've never actually seen childlike AVs in SL in anythiing but perfectly innocent settings so my head, which would often LIKE to remain firmly stuck in the sand, still has a hard time believing that they're doing anything but skipping around and dragging teddy bears)

2. Yep.

3. No, I really don't believe we should be censoring each other here, threatening the possibility of bans and we certainly shouldn't be driving anyone to the point of feeling they need outside support to deal with us. However Linden Labs has the right. Would they be correct in enforcing it?... I think they'd be doing themselves damage. If LL bans someone from these forums and this causes that person to go libel LL somewhere else... LL then has the right to sue them for libel but they will still end up having to deal with the bad publicity and the possibility of being investigated. The whole thing has the potential to get really ugly.

In the end if LL winds up being badmouthed to media or some other forum, thats for them to deal with in their own way... but here we as the consumers either support each other's opinions or argue them but WE do not have the power to shut each other up and we shouldn't.

I've closed this thread as it's inappropriate for the SL Forums for the following reasons:
And I'm sorry I didn't get here sooner--I wish I had more time in a day.