RL Censorship vs SL Freedom

**************************************************
Ok, this is _PARODY_ and laced with loads of _SARCASM_. I do not believe in censorship. I _hate_ censorship. I am only trying to be meanly humorous in my suggestion that we vote on other things to get rid of and to try and put the Lindens on the spot. The big spot. The one with the rings of red and white or black, with a red dot in the middle, it's called a target. I do not believe in any way, shape, or form, that, except for a**-kissing(yes, I censored it myself, so my post wouldn't be censored by someone else) the Lindens listen to a D**N thing we say. This post has been edited because sarcasm doesn't translate to text very well, and so many just didn't get it. Oh, and because many keep not getting it, no matter how many times I say it, yes, I think all sexual play should be in private, private homes, private clubs that are hard to get to with warnings as to what can go on, etc. I do _NOT_ think it should be against the rules to say _that_ stuff goes on someplace, so someone can see and say 'Oh, I don't want to go there!', though more often than not it just becomes a target for griefers to go somewhere they don't like and harrass people becuase 'they had to see it!' Like the furry lands and islands used to attract them by the butt..er, boatload.

PS Figured I'd throw this in here with the rest of the edit, I have no problem with the Goreans. Just figured I'd clarify that, as my post does make me look like an a** towards them and many others.
**************************************************

Whee. A**play has been banned. It's a privately owned world, so it's Linden Lab's choice. It _SHOULD_ be included in the ToS so no one interested in that sort of thing will join the community, however. Especially so they won't have anything they've made or uploaded to SL taken away from them. And in case anyone's forgotten, if you pick through the ToS you don't really own anything on SL, not the land, not the items you build, not the textures you upload, LL has the right to take them any time they want. Go read the ToS, it has some double-talk and contradicts itself on the rights of your items and rights in SL, but it's there.

Now this is all very amusing, however, if the facts are stated, then it's only because of the community that a**play has been banned from public places.

Also, public and private have been completely re-defined but _ONLY_ for a**play. Public, by Linden definition, is anyplace owned by Linden Labs. Private is anyplace owned by anyone else. For a**play, public is _anywhere_, except places no one else goes. That's right, it hasn't been banned except in private places, it's banned in any place with any sort of traffic, meaning if you set up a sim only for a**players, and only the a**players can go there, that sim is now a high-traffic area and subject to being removed. Also a little note, even NON-SEXUAL players can no longer play a child avatar. Even if you say you are over 18, you can _NOT_ say your avatar is under 18.

Again, this is their right, and would be fine and dandy if they'd actually _TELL EVERYONE_ in the ToS, in plain, easy to understand words. I can help them with this, since they seem to be having problems; You can not play a character that is stated to be under the age of 18, and you can not _roleplay_ as being under 18 in any but the most private places, like land that is invite only. Any items and textures depicting or dealing with a**play or young people in any way, especially dealing with sexuality, is also forbidden. There, easy.

That being said, perhaps we ought to vote on all the rest of the questionable activities in SL, since it's obviously the _community's_ decision to get rid of a**play, or so everyone I've talked with that represents Linden says.

Slavery, especially that depicted against women by the Goreans, and I'm not talking the BDSM model, but the real 'you have no say' sort of thing.

BDSM - lots of people find that objectionable.

Furries - Yep, lots of folks hate them, and yes, I am one.

Guns - That should certainly be voted on.

Necrophilia - There are a few groups dealing with that. vote.

Bestiality/Zoophilia - Lots of people hate that. Ban the quadrupeds and hexapeds! Everyone using a non-anthro or centuar-like form must be doing it for sex!

Homosexuality - Vote on the queers!

Religion - Hey, ban all those religions that hate someone else! They're objectionable to those people!

Sex - Hey, lots of people find sex at all offensive, outside of their own private quarters, vote on that!

Swearing - There's tons of folk that think we shouldn't swear, ever, and have tried to pass litigation on controling public speach.

Nazis/Neo-Nazis/Skinheads - Call them what you will, all those people who hate everyone not 'white'.

Other Races - Vote on your race of choice to hate to ban them from SL.

Hermaphrodites - Hate the 'third' gender, now's your chance to say no more.

HyperSexuals - Tired of seeing giant breasts and super-huge peni?

Not a comprehensive list in the slightest, but, if you can get rid of one thing, you can get rid of them all. It's funny, though, I've never seen any a**play outside of any place that doesn't list it as ok. But, oh my god, if you can possibly walk in on someone doing it, it should be voted on and gotten rid of if people don't like it!

There's my opinion, all of you who think censorship of things done in _PRIVATE_ areas is ok should go take a flying leap off of the washington monument.

Oh, and maybe I am into *content deleted*, but that's my own business. I never rub it in anyone else's face, but the real point of this is I AM F***ING ANTI-CENSORSHIP! so I'd be there for you if one of your groups was being attacked.

(note self-censored to keep this post from being deleted by small-minded individuals)

Randall David Kramm player of Jamey Satyr, _Lifetimer_, joined 2003

Fine, you're anti-censorship. had your rant yet?

I'm anti- anything that has a significant and real chance of endangering children. I guess that's the mindset you get from working with children. And yes, I do consider sexual ageplay to be something that can endanger children.

And you exagerrate the case anyway. I am informed that non-sexual ageplay is accepted within SL, and for teh record, that is something I am comfortable with.

No, you are not, by the exact statement of the rules, allowed to say your av is younger than 18. Exactly as Robin Linden has said. Thanks for playing.

Oh, and so you know, /327/ce/170175/9.html#post1431567 is where you can find the _exact_ wording of the policy, which includes the words 'Any account asserting an age that does not meet Second Life's
minimum age of eligibility will be closed.' which, according to Robin, includes in the profile.

PS roleplay doesn't harm minors. By it's exact definition someone pretending to be an age other than their own is not that age. Just thought you'd like to know, since you seem shaky on the whole pretend vs real life issue.

wheres the feature suggestion part of this feature suggestion?

That Linden Labs should allow residents absolute freedom to do anything on their land reguardless to the consequences to other residents and Second Life as a viable business?


This has never existed - Until age play no one was hopping up and down decrying freedom from censorship even though for years Linden Labs has banned racist hate speech displays.


Its one thing to be for absolute freedom to do what you want as adults. Its another thing to expect Linden Labs to allow activities that hurt Second Life's potential future.

Ah, yes, but the _point_ of this post, which the previous replyer failed to take note in, was that Linden Labs has it listed in the ToS that no racial slurs are welcome.

They took to only letting people know about _this_ change in policy by passing around notes, and saying they were _not_ going to include the change of policy in the Blog or in the ToS.

They also say that it is the _COMUNITY_ that doesn't want people to roleplay minors.

THOSE are the parts I'm, in my sarcastic way with my post, above, pointing out.

That and, with their whole 'Your World, Your Imagination' the inclusion of censorship of activities that arn't hurting anyone, other than, say, the _adults_ participating, it no longer sounds like _our_ world, but _the vocal majority's world_.

I suggest you go and read the other age play threads. Not everyone is convinced it had anything to do with Residents and any Majority.

But rather bad press and potential fall-out related to it.

The decision came very shortly after an unflattering report of some activities in Second Life done on Fox news.

And if they want to claim it always was basically offensive and never allowed - they cant go and change the TOS , nor make it open that they are changing policy - can they?

I think the way they are going about it is more like :

- It never was really allowed, we didnt know the extent it was going on, were gonna clean that up Ms Fox news , thanks for pointing out what these rule breakers had been up to!

PS - the thread where we complain that they say the community says things when they never even ask us our opinion is here -
/142/75/170360/1.html

Im possitive a vast majority of people are against sexual Age Play - but I doubt that had anything to do with their decision.

Apparently you didn't read their 'new policy' as it quite clearly states 'and the Second
Life community as a whole has made it clear that it views such behavior to be broadly offensive' and Robin Linden said, in her community meeting that it _was_ because of the community.

They have also said it is because of possible laws in the US, but it isn't, and they have stated, several times, that SL policy shall not be dictated by the laws of any country but the US, though the policy says 'may violate real-world laws in some areas' leading one to believe they mean other countries laws.

I would like it all spelled out, completely, to the point, in plain language, _exactly why_ they did it, _exactly what_ it covers, and for it to be placed somewhere to tell everyone what is not allowable in SL _that is not illegal_ in the US, the only government in the world that can, currently, bring any litigation against their servers, as they are in the US(California and Texas).

And thank you for pointing out where the complaint _should_ go. This is, after all, the first time I've bothered to be on the SL forums since they went live. I usually only Forum during beta testing. The link to the exact 'new policy' is in my original post, if you'd like to go read it.

No I read all that - I just dont beleive thats why they did it.

I think they did it becuase of bass press and made a business decision.

It was pointed out something similair happened with Yahoo chat rooms years ago.

I think the laundry list of reasons was added after the fact as "Reasons" but im in no doubt the decision was made first then the list of "whys" was made - therefore I dont put any stock into them.

Thefore whether their reasons make any sense arent really the point.

Also the reason the didnt go public is they dont WANT any more publiciity on this.


There found my original post on this -

Oh, most of us are sure it's for reasons of money, that is to get money that they don't have, like keeping their IP from being banned in Italy and France.

Someone who will remain nameless accidentally let those countries slip when she/he was talking about reasons why.

Given that we put said person on the spot, quite unexpectedly, and said person wasn't quite able to stay to only talking the company line, I think it has a lot to do with the EU countries that have a history of banning IP addresses for having things they don't like.

It's all speculation, though, until/unless someone comes forth and says 'yes, that's why', which I doubt will ever happen.

Perhaps I made a mistake posting here, given that most people probably can't see the sarcasm past the hate boiling in their eyes, or the feelings of hurt and betrayal crawling up from the pits of their stomachs.

All I wanted to point out is the sheer idiocy of them saying it was because of the community, and to try and get someone to say for sure what the hell was behind it, after all these years of dedicated non-involvement in the SL communities unless someone was griefing others.

Oh, and let's make no mistake, the policy changes don't change a thing for me, save possibly getting rid of maybe two or three groups that I belong to, depending on how things are phrased for them, one being a high-school roleplaying group.

well even bad press is a money motivation.

Probably right - business' make decisions based on money.

Nah they wont ever admit it. Its probably true they didnt like the idea of sexual ageplay anyhow. But the money made them have to act. They knew this ban would be fairly popular.

Business's never do things for their stated motives.

Neither do countries for that matter.

Those days are long gone.

Are you sure that's what he means? That is, does it mean you can't say "my character is 12", even when you're not involved in sexual activity in that character in any way? Or does it mean you can't say "the owner of this account is 12"? Given the context of the message it's not at all clear.

Let's say I'm playing a robot, and I say my robot character was manufactured in 2006 (say, that's the year the account was created). Would that fall afoul of this restriction, do you think? Is a one-year-old robot a minor?

I have to say that I'm uneasy about this decision myself, irrespective if this point... but I'm not convinced your interpretation is the only one. I think a clarification from a Linden should be forthcoming.

actually I understand this one - becuase of enforcement.

Otherwise sexual ageplayers who use children avs will simply say they dont do anything sexual and still claim they are 12 years old or whatever age.

So yeah they will be punishing the innocent to get the guilty.

I'm not sure if they'll take character background into consideration or not.

You can probably get away with a 'built on' or 'created on' date, but Robin Linden said specifically you can not have, in any way, anywhere on your account, including the profile, anything that says your character is under 18.

It doesn't matter if you say 'player 25, character 17', she said they will still take it as 'player saying he/she is 17' and will ban the account.

I can't say _for absolute certain_ what they'd do, I can only say what Robin Linden said at the community meeting.

Which is a reason they need to state _everything_ in plain, easy to understand, language where anyone who needs to see it can read it, so as not to accidentally get their account banned or suspended.

Ill be surprized if they do spell out their policy more clear than they have.

And no- I dont think theyve spelled it out very clear.

I imagine they will make people change their profiles, etc. First before banning them.

Kind of like if you have nudity (even av nudity) on your profile - you can be reported and you will get a short suspension and told to remove the nudity.

How exactly does sexual ageplay between adults on the internet pose any danger to real children?
Could you explain this, please?

That's it, I'm going to found up the furries and tell everyone to express their age as it pertains to the agerage lifespan of the animal in which they are. If they are a canine and 21, then by all means say you're 3.
And then I'll have fun running around as a 21 year old dragon. Wait, dragons live hundreds of years, no? Nice, I'm underage.

Unfortunately, stating _any_ age in your profile, LL will take the _lowest age_ as a statement that _YOU_, the player, are that age, and suspend or ban your account, as has already been stated, by Robin Linden.

I am not making it up.

By all means, go ahead and call yourself whatever age you want in your profile, I'm sure they won't get to talking to you for quite awhile.

Even running a search program through all the profiles, it'll take a good while for them to get to everyone that says 'I'm 17' or less in their profile.



Also, so everyone knows the definition of ageplay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageplay

In case someone isn't able to grasp it, ageplay is roleplay by _adults_ so in no way harms any children.

By _definition_, ageplay can not include a minor.

Also, by _definition_ ageplay does not include sexual play, though it _can_.

Simply put, it is an _adult_ pretending to be a _minor_ for roleplaying purposes, and it can be quite healthy for the adult in question to shove aside all worries of adulthood for awhile, and remember what it's like to just play.

Also, because I know some people still believe in the 'homosexuals are child molesters, here, a study: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

In my personal belief, and has been cited by other psychologists, fantasy roleplaying is healthy, it's repressing your fantasies that can lead to psychological problems, social problems, or even outright violence, such as in the cases of repressed homosexuals or bisexuals and the hate crime of 'gay-bashing'.

Note, I am not saying all 'gay-bashers' are closet homosexuals or bisexuals, nor do I cliam that all 'gay-bashing' is done physically, much of it is emotional violence.

I hope this helps answer the question of how 'ageplay' can be hurting minors, and hopefully gives a few other definitions and a lot more information people can use for understanding.

Two detailed answers for the price of one! Can it get any cheeper?

Anyway, getting back on track, I believe we, the paying people, should start voting on what we find offensive, use the voting feature and give your input on what you don't like about the SL community.

We should also make suggestions for a new slogan, since, with censorship in the works, regardless of what is being cesored, 'Your world. Your imagination.' no longer fits.

Trust me, let's all get together and vote, and see just how much LL actually pays attention to the community.

It'll be fun.

Really.

SL will be treated as any other game or DVD on the market, pixels or not you just ain't going to be able to advertise ageplay in public, especially if it involves underteens.

Yes, yes, but Ageplay doesn't involve 'underteens' it involves Adults.

Subject at hand, though, voting on what you want censored next.

From TOS:

in which Linden expand:


They've effectively admitted that real minors may manage access despite their prohibition, so may have set out to remove their liability should a paedophile try to claim he/she thought someone "must" have been an adult because of the TOS. Namely, stating you're a minor by word or appearance (however problematical /that/ might be) is violating those TOS. And someone proceeding in ageplay with someone else presenting themselves as a minor is feasibly the real situation as well as the virtual one, so the adult must have been aware of the risk. I think it would be generally agreed such risk is unacceptable. As for voting on it, do you really want tabloid headlines screaming in their usual considered fashion "SL to vote on paedophilia!"? I'd be astonished if Linden could contemplate that without raising a sweat. It is, after all, their software running on their machines. We just buy a license to use it - they set whatever boundaries the health of the whole thing requires.

Although the objective is sensible enough there is an air of fractal absurdity to it all... Think of a child pretending to be an adult joining SL as a virtual adult pretending to be a child in roleplay. Or an adult joining SL as an adult pretending to be a child saying they were an adult catering to their inner child, which is not pretending on some level really...? Which layer of reality would madam like today? Fries with that? Drinks? And so on.

Taking a fundamentalist approach to advertising slogans must make life a bit strange. Most people would mentally insert something like "reasonable" into a slogan like "Your World, Your Imagination", if they thought about it at all. It's a lofty goal, a desired state, a perhaps vague but pious intention, an /inspiration/, rather like food at McDonalds perhaps. Did you buy "compassionate conservative" in 2000? I ask out of academic curiosity.

Yes, well, perhaps, though that does _nothing_ to stop the minors who join SL's main grid and are portraying themselves as adults, with adult AVs from joining in on sexual play or watching it take place.

The proper spelling is Pedophilia, by the way.

Just so you know.

And an ageplayer _can_ be a pedophile, but they arn't always.

Ageplay is about pretending to be young and innocent.(see above link to definition of Ageplay)

_IF_ it's being done for sex, it is usually about being in a situation of even more lack of control, with the adition of a total, or near total, lack of knowledge about sex, than normal BDSM even.

It's quite intriguing to look into, really, if you have a stomach for the inner workings of the human mind.

The whole stated goal to protect minors from seeing the 'naughty stuff' is fictitious at best.

It, like the stated 'community as a whole finds ageplay objectionable' is a fictitious excuse to do away with it.

However, this thread is about finding _more_ stuff to censor out of SL, since Linden Labs says they're censoring things the community finds objectionable.

They swear they're listening to us.

Really.

I mean, sure, there's barely any precident to it, but they say they're doing what we want, let's put them to the test.

I now vote, wholeheartedly, to have _all_ major companies have to build only in areas zoned for corporations, no more building huge outlets or mega-malls next to our houses and recreational areas!

It depicts teens & underteens though just as any illegal DVD or Game also comprises of pixels

Not that I agree they have the absolute freedom to rape a child but, lol, business seems to be a four letter word 'round these parts. So we can't use that argument.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that, despite the fact that no child is being harmed (how do they know that btw?), allowing this behavior to performed and/or promoted in public places is kinda bad for LL business. And, I'm sure many LL employees have kids they need to feed.

Oh wait. Molesters, and that's what we're talking about here, rather than pedophilia really - and there is a difference, be it those who are in RL or those who are here to simply act out the fantasy, really don't care about kids being nurtured and cared for (in ways that don't serve the primary needs of the "adult" do they? Then how about this - if the game does not succeed financially it will cease to exist and then you won't have anywhere to go to do your harmless RPing? Or should it be that LL work for you and satisfying your needs and your needs only?

The narcissistic who feel they should have some unalienable right to publically RP violence against children, or anyone else for that matter, don't have the cognitive ability to understand, (in real life terms, yes there is still RL to consider here!), why this behavior is unacceptable and potentially harmful TO SOMEONE ELSE, even if it's simply being RP'd!

FWIW, (not much) others DO exist and have rights, needs, and desires, just as you do! Nothing matters but the narcissist, their wants, their needs, their desires. I'm thinking another word for it might be sociopathic. They don't think like us because they can't. There's always going to be a reason why this is OK.