My response to the New Rule! (Be ready for a long read)

True. While it seems like they are wasting their time not saying right now, odds are they are working furiously on this situation, probably afraid to make any snap decisions for fear of alienating anyone, but trying to come to the best one they can think of. We'll see. Until then, carry on *waves his hand at everyone*

Oran, old boy, I believe it was one of your countrymen who correctly stated the Golden Rule: he who has the Gold, gets to make the rules.

The UK already has that law. "pseudophotographs" is the important phrase, and I happen to know that the seed incident for that was the distribution of some pictures from Japan, where adult models dress up in cheesy schoolgirl outfits and role-play.

in re. Germany not doing something, or not using something en masse: there was a famous case of them blanket-banning a particular spreadsheet product because it had reproducible errors in an important financial function: bingo, the german national body of accountants made it an ejectable offence to use the product in question. So they have "form" in behaving this way!

It does seem very weird to me that the predominant global hobby-in-common is tourism, where people travel around to experience the positive aspects of one anothers cultures and environments; yet on the internet, the reverse is true - allwe do is whinge about bad influences of one kind or another.

The reason it seems weird to you is that what you are imagining truly is weird.
Try getting out on the Internet more Even dens of child-porn iniquity like SL (joking!) are mainly good to wonderful.

Really? Do you have a reference for that case? I understood that "pseudophotographs" meant Photoshopped images. Saying that an adult can be legally considered a child for child pornography purposes if they look and act too much like a child is a *huge* and very controversial situation.

Not really, just make it illegal then it's no controversy any more.

Broccoli

Well, as far as the US 'having laws that ban virtual child porn images', I can assure you that we don't. That part of our internet laws was stricken out specifically because there were no real victims.

That's one of the wonderful things about 90% of this country's laws: Someone actually has to be aggrieved, or injured, or somehow made a victim before action can be taken. This is something not to be viewed with horror, but lauded and hopefully mirrored worldwide.

*sigh* For the ten thousandth time...

The CPAA 1996 act, which originally banned virtual child porn in the US, *was* stricken out. This was not "because there were no real victims", but because it broke the First Amandment.

However, the PROTECT 2003 act bans it all over again, and so far that part of that act has *not* been stricken out yet, although another part has. In the PROTECT 2003 act, the section that bans virtual child porn cannot be stricken out under the First Amendment because it includes the stipulation that the virtual porn must be "obscene under the Miller Test", and material that fits that definition is not protected by the First Amendment.

Also, you are wrong to assume that there are no real victims from not having a law against virtual child porn. If there is no law against virtual child porn, then anyone who is arrested with a real photo of a real harmed victim can make the argument in court that it's just a realistic virtual image, and if the police can't prove that it is not (which is very hard) then they will go free to harm again. (This is actually the real reason why these laws were passed - not to prevent virtual worlds like SL, but to prevent Photoshopping.)

Actually as I understand it there *ARE* valid objections to this act, they just haven't made it all the way through the process yet.

Merely bing convenient or making things easier for prosecution (which is what you are claiming) has never been sufficient reason to ban anything!

According to your logic we should ban eating since then no pedophile could possibly escape "justice".

*moves*

Forgive me, everyone, if someone else already pointed this out, but all of this is already being decided...as we type, in a Pennsylvania courtroom, as a judge decides the admissibility and evidentiary relevance for both sides in the Bragg claim against Linden Lab's administration of Second Life, in the context of ownership of virtuality vs. the TOS (as well as a boatload of other issues).

The only dangerous premise here is that privacy truly exists anywhere other than private estates that actively limit access to a group list...otherwise, none truly exists, and the entreaty to report is not limited to what we see in public areas, only to what we can see...have camera, will report???

Actually I doubt if the scope of what will be argued is anywhere near that broad!

The "contract of adhesion" doctrine is pretty standard stuff, but the application is novel.

As in most areas of life the really first rate judges will actually look forward to sorting out these issues.

About the only thing that is certain is that there will be issues and arguments brought out that no one could have even dreamed about in advance!

IMHO it is worth noting that SL right now most cloely resembles ancient China with its fiefdoms of absolute rulers and a very weak, disorganized central government who serve mostly to randomly destroy some of those fiefdoms.

A good analogy. We can even modernize it to the time of the Boxer Rebellions. We of course are the various tribes fighting for control, while the Western Imperial Powrs could be played by..............