If AgePlay Is Being Restricted, So Should Gambling...

Hmm, I can't see why kids aren't allowed to play with RL chips & Lindens too then.

See what happens if you open a 'gaming center' rl where people can exchange USD for 'chips' and play, then 'cash out' those 'chips for USD.

Now replace rl with sl, and 'chips' with 'lindens' and you see the striking -same thing.-

Actually you run into one flaw with this logic.... Yes people can trade USD for said "chips" (or lindens) but where the logic is flawed is chips bought back by the place of business are in fact not on legal grounds however the logic behind SL would be you buying chips that cant normally be traded in for anything of value short of stuff actually in the gaming center itself and then wanting to get some money for them you sell them to someone else that participates at the gaming center for a value you both agree on. Which is perfectly Legal to do so. However the chips have no inherit value outside of the gaming center itself and the gaming center wont trade the chips back out to USD for you but allow you to sell them to other people if you so wish to.

The problem with how your wording it is its only really illegal if the gaming center in this picture is actually buying back the chips themselves otherwise its like going out and buying a stack of paper and then selling that same stack of paper to someone else. The problem being that this is a grey area unless the government starts claiming we cant sell bits of data to each other for USD there is nothing inherently illegal about gambling in SL because your simply gambling with tokens that have no r eal value outside of SL and cant be traded back to LL for money but can be sold to another resident for real money. This is a grey area of where the act passed in 2006 comes into question. How can it be properly held to a virtual world when "cashing out" as it were is simply selling a limited license you hold to someone else.

A direct ruling on the act (if it passes senate and the president signs off on it) of how it applies to virtual worlds like second life would need to be made to distinguish this grey area that exists and they'd be hard pressed to make a clear ruling on it as its a tricky subject that hasnt been looked at before. Sure a claim can be made as such and such but you cant really enforce it under the guidelines of the act itself. Again if the act passes they will need to make the distinction here or any single person that cashes out any money that lives in the U.S could come under suspicion for gambling because it becomes hard pressed in that manner to really say (unless a casino thing has a description you cant tell what you paid or what paid you) case in point this is how the transaction history looks for something with a description.

261668873 Object Sale 100 2007-04-09 15:33:51 AITUI TATTOO- Remember first and last SL name (left out...) 39

Now a store that paid me (was some raffle thing...)

8 261696641 Object Pays 2 2007-04-09 15:55:07 (ditto)

No record of what paid me just object pays. You could find what the person owns by searching their name but thats circumstantial unless they can prove one directly used a machine there. Anything the person owns could of paid me a raffle ball in some other location me buying something but over paying. Numerous things of which make it almost impossible to police things =./

Um actually.... Kids can use tokens in slot machines tailored to it but only usually win back tokens. We have a few gamings centers like this and a family friend used to own one (they are family fun center things and machines like it are advertised on tv and the like.) Now if the kid went off and sold those tokens to another kid for money or anyone else for money how is the establishment itself then at fault? Are the instituting gambling then. Thats what gambling in SL comes down to (in real life you spend real usd to get said tokens they arnt redeemable for cash at the establishment) Someone playing with something they cant redeem for cash from the company but that they can sell to someone else.

Thats something the act in 2006 if it passes is going to need to prove that gambling in SL isnt and really good luck with that. Even if LL didnt allow cash transfers through a system people would make up other systems. Before Lindex there was GOM which was a 3rd party site that did the same thing Lindex does. Lindex is just there for ease of use but LL themselves still have no major bearing over it. There are still third party sellers out there even though Lindex exists.

So then if LL dont allow people to cash out their L but they sell it on a third party site how can it really again constitute that the casinos in SL are falling under the law. You see where the grey area is yet?

BTW "illegal" is merely a sick bird, "unlawful" is some action which actually violates a law.

Every human activity is regulated, forbidden, or has some group who WANT it regulated or forbidden!

There may be an exception, but I can't think of one.



That is how the law evolves.

However in practice "law is what judges say it is" (law professor quote) so until you can get a judge to actually uphold some sort of sanctions for doing whatever then whatever it is conforms to the law!

As Justice O'Conner said about Roe V Wade: "... remains the law of the land until such time as it is changed by statute or overturned in a court."

Merely having some bureaucrat "see it as a loophole" is not sufficient to be any more than official bullying.



An occupational hazard I admit



Actually it happens all the time, US Patent Law (35 USC et al) is specifically written to encourage this!

My observation is that so long a something CAN be controlled then there are always those who will attempt to control it!

What we now know as "Free Speech' was originally conceived as a way for the King to keep track of malcontents who couldn't be controlled any other way.

There are already areas of the internet which have attained this status, in fact what we now know as USENET/NETNEWS (www.faqs.org) was originally conceived as a relatively reliable way to spread information during a nuclear attack. As such it is inherently impossible to censor the service, as many totalitarian governments are finding out to their great distress.

A more exotic example is the legendary "Swiss bank account".

US law allows creditors (i.e. the IRS) to follow the assets of a US "person" anywhere.

The "offshore banking" scheme was actually set up by Guggenheim over 100 years ago and is still used for privacy among the very rich.

It actually costs about US$50K to set up a web of trusts and bank accounts that you do not "own" or "control" but merely "advise" under US law, but have the effect of controlling your funds where "Uncle" (and every other snoop) can't see them.

I haven't looked at that for almost 20 years, so I am sure the details are different today, but I also know that it is very popular among those who don't want a lot of mindless harassment.

If you think you have nothing to hide, email me your bank account number and password!



I am unaware of any case law which says that - do you have any?

The "metes and bounds" of the US Federal Constitution is subject of continual and intense debate in the legal community. It is far from "settled law"!

The "default" is that the US Constitution applies in full force to any actions or property within the US or "controlled by a US person" as Pres Bush found out recently.

I think this sums up your few posts rather nicely. Other than the insulting stuff.

If you dont see the problem with this quote, I suggest were never going to agree.

The purpose of judges was never to decide what laws should be. Merely decide when they had been broken. Or to determine when a law was in conflict with a higher law, such as the Constitution.

Unfortunately you aren't far off on that assesment. The instances of Judges adjuticating from the bench are increasing at a distressing rate.

Actually this is untrue. While it may not of originally been their purpose they are allowed to interpret the law as they see fit. This is the Prosecution and the Defenses Job to state case law in which a judge made a ruling or how a judge found on certain laws to better prosecute or defends the person being charged. A perfect example of this can be found regarding the very issue in question here. The wire act. In the mid to late 90's they tried to prosecute someone for online gambling under the wire act. The judge in this case ruled that the wire act only covered sports betting and betting on contests. In 2002 The department of justice got around to appealing this issue the judges ruling as to what he thought the law meant was upheld by the 5th Circuit appeals court and the Department of justices appeal was denied.

Its a judges ruling of what law and case law means that may or may not allow evidence for or against a defendant in a trial. And then it is up to a jury in most cases (very rarely will a judge actually make a ruling themselves) as to whether the person in question is guilty of breaking that law or not. Another example of judging law as they see fit is putting press holds in place when things can end up prejudicing a jury if it comes to that (they try to keep a jury away from newspaper and news in general these days and a juror isnt really supposed to discuss their case with other people) the same ends up going for a judge.... They cant have a discussion about a case with other people. My example goes against the freedom of speech but it can happen in some cases (rarely)

You dont see the problem with this?

Judges are supposed to be unbiased when they read and apply the law.

uh huh, if you say so.

Read what i said more rather then the first few lines. A judge needs to make the call on what he thinks a law means. Legal precedents and other court cases are presented by the District Attorney (or whichever attorney is representing the "People" usually a DA though) and the defense can present rulings made to the contrary. They are granted leeway in this sense to give the person a fair and just trial. However this comes down to things that there arnt totally specific guidelines laid out for and its usually on the People or the defense to put a motion to hearing to influence which way the judge will go.

As i said its not entirely true. In alot of cases Murdering someone is illegal yes law states murder is illegal but court allows one to defend themselves to show why they murdered someone be it an imminent threat to their safety, cold blooded murder, pre meditated and you have varying degrees of sentence put down by the court system and the department of correction. A judge cannot argue that murder is not illegal in some manner and its on the defense and the DA to show either way to a jury who end up making the final decision of guilty or not guilty. There is also a little thing called the burden of proof which to bring criminal charges against anyone needs to be met by the side representing "The People" if they fail to meet that burden of proof then a case can be dismissed.

Like i said if you bothered to read the rest of my post you would gather what im talking about. There are instances where things set down are a judgment call on the Judges end of things.

I read it.

I was disagreeing with the part of your post I directly quoted. I particuarily took exception to the "as they see fit part" Which although might be the way things are done isnt how things are supposed to be.

The Rest of your post and your example were not really good examples of the portion I quoted. Since a law written before the internet being narrowly intrepreted to not include internet gambling isnt really an example of a judge legislating from the bench.

The overall impression of your post was you disagreed with me so you made a statement and then repeated information youve already given in another way.

Therefore I quoted the part I disagreed with.

Judges are supposed to interpret and apply laws as they are written. Not as they see fit.

There are numerous problems with the legal system in the United States - this would be one of them.

*********
-I think you posted from the wrong account, but Im pretty sure who's post you meant.

Wow, there's a lot of bile in this thread.

The initial argument is interesting. SL is taking action against something that, while offensive, is not specifically illegal in the US just now. If LL is taking a stand, why not take a stand about something that the federal government *has* said to be illegal? The FBI is, in fact, investigating LL about gambling.

US legality is the only law system that really need worry LL, so long as all their servers are housed in the US. If I'm not mistaken, one part of the digital millenium act covers exactly that... any internet server set up inside the borders of the US and her territories are subject to US law. This is why porn sites operated in the US have to have that records statement at the bottom. So really, what it comes down to is that LL does need to reach a decision about gambling on its servers, and if they choose to allow it, they ought to move the servers to a country that has not made gambling illegal.

Have the best

-=Kiyoshi

Your logic is flawless, in my opinion. However if LL were to employ it the scenario would be:
1nline Gambling is illegal in the US. The suervers are in the US therefore Gambling will not be permitted.

2: Ageplay between adults as portrayed in SL is not illegal in the US, the servers are in the US, therefore Ageplay will be permitted. I totally agree. LL is bound by US law, for now, anyway. The law should apply to SL both ways. (And I am neither endorsing or condeming either activity).

The one thing is Online gambling isnt illegal yet. Keyword being yet..... The bill hasnt passed entirely as such a claim of it actually being illegal is false at least for the time being. Senate didnt allow them to push through this bill/act earlier this year when they tried to tag it to another bill that was going through senate at the time. This was back in February...... However owners do run the risk of casinos becoming illegal even though at the moment its a mass grey area it will eventually be examined..... But again its a grey area as i've said many times its hard to make a case here generally speaking.

Parts of the act itself could be used to protect LL from prosecution in fact it would be even harder to bring a case against LL themselves then it would an individual casino owner..... it also depends how they examine what a virual world would be considered under the act. This hasnt been defined even if the act/bill passes its still not technically illegal to gamble in SL as its not correctly defined yet as to how they are going to handle virtual worlds....... It will likely be examined but its a tough area really..... So yes casino owners are at risk in the future but they may or may not be its still up in the air......

Sadly Kiyoshi =/ this isnt as easy as it sounds =/

Since this role for judges was set up by the US Constitution I suppose you are correct - we never will agree!

The very purpose of the US Supreme Court is to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislative branch. Jefferson called this "checks and balances".

The notion that "Activist Judges" are somehow doing something improper is a fiction.

Right up there with "creationism science", "intelligent design theory", and "the inherent incapacity of the negro race to make reasonable decisions" (Dredd Scott v US)

A simple opinion of "possible" by a single law professor really does not seem like a ringing condemnation to me for some reason.

Somewhat like the arguments for universal gun control and the income tax being unconstitutional.

All of that is very interesting, but hardly having "force of law" until a judge actually supports that argument.

Once again, please cite some case law!

Some bureaucrat or politician not liking something does NOT make that thing unlawful in the US!

ONLY a "judge of competent jurisdiction" can do that!

There also seems to be some confusion about how the whole jury process works.

Any legal proceeding has two fundamental parts: "questions of law" and "questions of fact".

ONLY the judge may rule on "questions of law" and ONLY these questions may be appealed.

THAT is what "case law" is all about - what have other courts found to be the law in similar cases and why.

For example, if a person does "a" AND "b" AND "c" BUT NOT "d" THEN that person has committed the crime of "ZZZ"

A jury MAY be called to determine "questions of fact" ONLY - once the jury has made the determination that "a" AND "b" AND "c" BUT NOT "d" have occurred THEN they may find that these facts fit withing the law as defined by the trial judge and then render a FINDING (GUILTY in tha\e cas eof a criminal trial, "finding for xx" in the case of a civil trial.

A judge MAY be called on to determine "questions of fact" if there is no jury.

ONLY "questions of law" can be appealed, there is NO appeal of "findings of fact".

That is how the US legal system works and was designed to work!

An "activist judge" is merely a pleasant fiction from the losers!

Have you EVER heard the winning side whine about this?

You are aware Jefferson battled against Judicial Activism? I think maybe you should look at the history again.





It wasnt a fiction in the time of Jefferson and its not a fiction now. All branches of government have their excesses. The whole checks and blances you refer to are to limit that.

In fact - Jefferson and Madison wanted to add an Additional check in the proposed constitution for Virginia to deal with this very concern.




This is your comparision - NOT MINE>

I do not support creationism or racism. In my opinion you adding them to your comments is uneccesarily inflamatory.

I agree. It'll also be interesting to see how PayPal eventually handles all this since it's against their policy to process gambling transactions, as well as adult-related transactions for that matter.

Thats where these types of acts fall into a major grey area....... Its like saying we cant have money in world because it could be used for gambling thus really pushing its luck. They cant really limit it because of what someone might do with it. They wish they could but frankly its unjust to do so. The problem with this is how can you actually make a law permitting gambling with lindens just because they can be traded out to USD. I could buy tokens at these family centers win some more tokens and then sell said tokens to someone for USD that doesnt really constitute gambling in that light. Your not actually getting direct winnings of USD for what you do that'd be a diff story.

Rather your gambling to get more L$ which in that light isnt technically illegal in the least. Neither are online poker sites and gambling sites at the moment but they used their trying to push this law through as a scare tactic and sadly for alot of stuff it worked. I dont condone gambling in Real life or SL but i do think its a person's choice and a conscious one at that to go and use their own money to gamble. They do these acts so people are forced to stopped gambling or only have a really limited scope to gamble in and to help protect people in that light...... However..... Its not the casino's fault that people dont know when to stop gambling some people should know better then to go to a casino as they likely have other signs pointing to an addictive personality.

The issue is with gambling how can they legally touch it unless the person transfers it out into USD? Even if they do transfer it out its a grey area in that they sold L to someone else for $ they didnt trade in poker chips to LL.

Ageplay is not illegal... pedophilia on the otherhand is.

The definition of ageplay is between 2 consenting adults, pedophilia involves a child.

There is a difference!

No right minded person would believe that pedophiles are "normal". SL's adult area is supposed to be free of under 18's. If under 18'sare being allowed into this area, ten that is the issue, not what can be banned or not.

I want this as a signature, but it passes the character limit