Important! Adult shops, clubs and services in SL

First, you don't need to be over 18 to play World of Warcraft.

Second, I never said anything related to 'required to pay'. I said VERIFIED. My account was verified when I gave them credit card information to prove who I am. You are misunderstanding the difference. I am now a premium member. I first joined with a FREE VERIFIED account. It doesn't cost anything. In fact, they gave me free money to go along with my account just for verifying who I was.

Yes, you need to be 18+ to get a credit card. You can have a LINKED credit card to say, your parent's account, but any transactions go to their account(and they'll know what your spending your money on). Go to any CC site for their FAQ or do google search for 'credit cards under 18'. It's federal law that prevents minors from getting their own credit cards.

Also, my interest isn't in eliminating the possibility of minors getting on the main grid. I really don't care what some other person's kid sees. Call me heartless, whatever. Watch your own kids. My interest lies in protecting the vendors and residents of SL from frivilous lawsuits. If a minor gets onto the grid using a CC that belongs to someone else, as far as I'm concerned, that person is responsible for whatever the minor sees on the grid, just as if they bought anything else they shouldn't have with that person's credit card, it's the same as that person buying it for them. You can't escort a minor into an R rated movie and then sue because of what the minor sees in the movie.

Domneth-

My point was: to a parent, both WoW and SL both look like 'games', and there are courts that likely wouldn't find the parent at fault for that error.

Your "Free Verification" was either not free.. or it was not verified.

Either LL paid a service fee to perform a "no charge to you" card swipe... or they just stored your card number, unverified.

Multiply that fee by hundreds of thousands and it's not hard to see why the "free verification" requirement was eliminated.

Credit cards agencies may not issue them to under-18-year-olds... because they can't take them to court. I looked, but couldn't find federal law mandating this though.

Nor could I find anything that said that a credit card verification reveals debit, minor, secured or other data that you claim it does. I'm not saying it doesn't... but I can't find a link backing that up either, (too danged much adcrap in the way). If you can provide evidence of this, I would genuinely appreciate the effort.

Despite my antagonistic ranting... I do side with you... freedom of expression is something I value highly, even if some people choose to express nothing but 'purient' content.

I'd very much like to see better solutions evolve... But CC's aren't it. Requiring CC's will block *many* legitimate adults... and fail to block *many* minors. It makes about as much sense as putting someone in jail to prevent them from being robbed.

Warcraft comes with an ESRB rating on the box, parents can see what they are buying. Why Second Life does not participate in this system is beyond me. It would most likely have an M rating, considering it's an 18+ game, that shouldn't be a problem. However, as far as SL and WoW looking like the same game to a parent, right on the main website www.secondlife.com there is a box for teen life (big letters 'UNDER 18?').

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. By free, I mean free to me. You stated in a previous post that you didn't want to see forced paid accounts (because it would lead to a snobbish community) and that wasn't what I had suggested. No, I'm not taking into consideration LL's overhead, that's not my concern as a consumer playing their game and it adds in factors that don't need to be considered for this. Considering the nature of this game, LL *should* be doing age verification. It's legally stupid on their part not to. Anyone in-game is pretty much protected without any verification since they depend on LL to keep minors off the grid.

Here is one link. I googled 'credit cards under 18' and it was the first one, a CC FAQ website:
http://consumers.creditnet.com/Library/Credit_Card_FAQ/Im_under_18_Can_I_get_a_credit_card.ccfaq_003.php

If you want an actual law reference, you'll have to research that yourself. Every credit card company based in the united states and every related FAQ says the same thing:



People over seas often use paypal. You also need to be 18 to sign up with paypal. SL could easily allow Paypal as a form of verification, for people who can't get a CC.

Once again, I'm not interested in debating how crappy parents are at never keeping up on what their kids are doing, or even how easy it is for under age to get on the grid. That's not the problem I see. Like I said, I don't really care what your kid sees. That's YOUR business, and if it's not, make it your business!

What I see, is a place where people are allowed to express their creativity. I do not want that dumbed down and I want to see that everyone, including people creating 'Mature' content, are protected as best as possible.

Most sites have permutations of the wording "The Cardholder represents that he/she is of sufficient legal age to create binding legal obligations for any liability he/she may incur as a result of the use of Verified by Visa." The site you cited seems to be in that spirit as well. Though, I find their choice of wording more ambiguous than the other sites I've seen.

I have seen mention that it is illegal to solicit minors with offers of credit. But that doesn't stop the hawks that plaster the front of university book stores with credit applications, or pressing applications into the hands of freshmen that aren't at the age of maturity.

Anyway... I've searched, and now I give up.

As far as I can see there is nofederal law prohibiting issuing unsecured credit cards to minors without a guarantor/co-signer. (Lenders avoid the practice because minors can't be held accountable.)

Debit cards may show up as such, but I see no evidence anywhere that secured/co-signed/guarantor cards show up any differently than normal cards.

And I don't see anything saying that the garantor must be able to review the charges of the minor either.

I was just hoping to confirm whether these are real facts or not.
Sorry, I've gotten so damned nitpicky about this, you sounded so certain, I was doubtful of you and was hoping for concrete evidence.

My Parcel is only Mature because we sell "Virtual Narcotics", but in this country, the legal age for pornography, etc would be 18 in most cases, not 13 (?)

I thought LL was in California...ah, whatever.

Since not every XXX type Island or SIM can be "walled in" to prevent minors from gettin in...then LL SHOULD provide protection for the business owners to...

Still being somewhat n00b-ish...I'll be eager to hear what's said about this on the 20th at the next Town Hall

(it is the 20th right? i'm kinda senile)

When applying for a credit card, you must enter your Social Security Number, if that comes back as a minor, they (are supposed to) deny you based on age. I can say this from experience when I applied for one at 17, as a student card, but I needed my parents to apply and add me as a cardholder and they'd recieve the statements but payments would be accepted from either party. If you enter a false birthdate and the company doesn’t do the required checks, the company is partially liable, but the child/minor can be charged with fraud. A credit card is considered a contract by accepting terms of agreement and not considered a 'necessity'. (By law if the item is a necessity, such as rent, food, etc. then they can be held liable in the contract)

http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/contract_valid.htm

Student paper on it:
http://www.ilrg.com/students/outlines/download/contracts-duke-spring-2005-salzman.doc

Now in Illinois, the contract can be considered legal, but they allow to argue a minor cannot enter a contract and be held to it (love the double talk)
http://www.law.siu.edu/selfhelp/newsletter/42.htm

Some more:
http://www.irstaxattorney.com/offer-in-compromise/minor_child.html
(It regards to taxes, but offers info on 'contracts')


Here's blaming parental responsibility to the parent for credit cards:
http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/contracts_minor_online.htm



This is in place not only because when you get a credit card, you enter a contract, but law prevents minors from being held accountable in the event of fees. When I was 16, some medical bills appeared on my credit report. At 18, I wrote and had them investigated and it was removed. By law, credit cards must report and by another law, credit reports cannot have additions on a minor.



References for proof:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4488488

This is an opinion question, so take it as you wish:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061124010901AA7PASF

There is a system in place that checks for age of the cardholder for normal debit and credit cards. Many XXX sites are starting to use this technology (I will freely admit, most still do not, but more do everyday). Here's is sort of a snippet on the technology, the article was from 2003 and this system has already been developed and implemented, but the article here gives the best details: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=36737

Here is a related article about the possibility of suing:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20060626.html

Did the girl do some stupid things? Yes. But it doesn't stop the courts...

Philip once stated:


He's right in a sense, BUT there are still admitted kids on the grid that were AR'ed months ago. Also, it's not about keeping them out, but keeping vendors and other adults safe, by providing a barrier that requires parental involvement.

An 8 year old cannot get a cell phone with parental consent, nor a credit card, nor a bank account...

Here's the (in challenge) law that helps out with that:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html



Under this law, requiring credit cards would be considered sufficient based on other laws that prohibit verification means without parental involvement. Again, note it doesn't state 'realistic', rather it states 'harmful to minors'.

Here as an ‘expert’ put it:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:3JKKnkvHVB4J:www.cei.org/PDFs/COPA_and_Internet_Content_Regulation.PDF+credit+card+laws+minor&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=21



However, this means the responsibility goes to the parents or there is proof the child committed fraud and would essentially turn the heat on the minor if the parent were to bring it to court.

COPA basically started off in draft, saying:



Now, while COPA isn’t a law at this time (it’s under injunction as we speak even though it was enacted, ACLU challenged it), some other states have adopted it and it IS a law. So technically, if you live in that state, you can sue against LL and/or vendors because jurisdiction lies in your home state that could have the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000231----000-.html

Is a US code that is currently enacted:


There’s a lot more information out there, I listed some short findings of laws on each part, but my searches turned up hundreds of cases in the gaming industry similar to the setup that SL currently allows that were challenged. At this time, based on all those I searched, all it takes is to sue on behalf of minors for:

“LL not taking the appropriate precautions for minors not to enter a platform that consists of adult material”


ETA: Here's an article particularly concerning SL.
http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/spotlight/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003087559&&&&&imw=Y

P.S. The seaches I used were:

minor credit card law
minor charge card law
minor contract
minor legal contract
minor game website contract
minor online contract

Where I work (online gaming) if someone registers with either Visa Electron or Solo card we suspend their account so that they can not play until they have sent us proof of age. We are very strict on this point even when they call in and scream at us 'I'm 58 and I have three kids over the age of 18'.

What stops this sort of verification for SL? Costs, staffing ... and unverified accounts.

Are people going to be stopped from doing what they like on their own land in private? If you partner up will you be limited to 'snuggling'?

If I wanted to be bored by limitation I'd have gone for TSO!

Nope. My son, at age 15, was smart enough to steal his dad's credit card and register on several adult websites. It was his dad's fault (he had let the kid use the card because he was too lazy to go to the store himself (did I mention he's also my ex-husband, lol)), but it still didn't stop a minor from accessing adult material.

The issue is legal liability for the material provider, not access by minors. If minors are accessing adult material, the responsibility lies squarely with the parent/guardian of the minor, not with the adult community.

I think disclaimers and payment verification are about the only steps one would have to protect oneself legally. It would show your intent to prohibit minors from accessing adult content.

I would also take it one step further, and ban child avs. I am quite concerned that pimping oneself out at a child av is not considered a violation of the TOS. Since no one on this service should be under 13, there is absolutely NO reason to have child avs. Period. Most of the child avs I've seen have been catering to pedophiles. I don't think that's somewhere Linden Labs should go, or allow anyone else to go. As a business owner, I've made the decision to ban child avs. I understand that free speech law wouldn't cover a child av (as it's fictional, and fiction isn't illegal), and I can't make anyone follow my lead, but I think the adult community should strongly discourage such conduct.

It's a sad world when childlikeness==pedophilia.

Might as well ban furries as well, it's clearly bestiality, isn't it?

The TOS doesn't say no furries (which, IMO, are human more than animal), but it does say no kids. That's my point.

I have no issue with furries, or freaks, or doms or subs, but I do with pedophiles. My personal experience in SL with child avs have been child avs hanging out in front of the Xcite store pandering, child avs soliciting sex in strip clubs, and escorts advertising their services while wearing a child av. That's my experience. I have never seen a child av that just wanted to be a kid, play ball, or hang with his/her parents in SL. I'm not saying it doesn't exist (I have a feeling one of everything exists in SL), but it's not what I've seen.

If no one under 13 is allowed in the grid, why have child avs? If children are not allowed, why allow children?

Well, someone might want to be Peter Pan.

You may well be right, but if so, it's a sad old world.

Well, I've come across quite a few child av's, one regularly at my favourite, well policed, watering hole and dance club. I've seen others in shopping malls. I've been to Xcite and not seen any.
One of the prime attractions to SL I and I'm sure many others find is the old "be what you want to be".
You're being ageist. plain and simple. They are just avatars. They are not breaking the law and we're descending into another 'be what I want you to be' syndrome.
Sorry, but it's the freedom here that is so attractive, not the restrictions.

In my business, I control who enters. If the question is legal liability as a business owner, I'm not going to encourage pedophelia. So, I guess you're right. On my land, you will not be a child av.

I understand about freedom. I advocate it. But just as you are free to be a child av as long as the Lindens allow it, I am free to ban it as a business owner and pose the question of why allow them in the first place.

My question is, if no children are allowed (and that's not ageism, that's TOS, a Linden rule), and I'm worried about exposing kids to adult content or contributing to illegal sexual activity (active pedophelia), then I should ask why should child avs exist in the first place. One thing's for sure, they won't on my land.

Freedom includes choices. I choose to ban child avs as a way to protect myself from any possible legal liability and to ban pedophiles from my land. If you choose to play as a child, you're not welcome in my business. It's your choice.

I find it interesting that not one post in opposition has stated, "ya know, I run around as I child av because . . . " Those are the people I'd like to hear from. The ones that could give me any insight into legitimate uses of child avs other than as sex workers.

And yes, it is a sad world. But my part of it won't be a playground for child avs and their patrons.

However, furries are welcome.

Don't turn a legal debate about regulations, laws and such into...

"Play my way or give me a good reason that I'll accept" thread, those get locked.

This thread has many informative posts in it, so let's stick to REAL kids and not kid avs.

Then the responsibility would be shown as the parent's for allowing access to an adult method of verification, committing fraud.

Exactly my point. There would be no legal liability on the part of the service provider.

You are conflating avatar with the person behind it. The TOS says that children are not permitted on the adult grid. It does NOT say that adults are not permitted to use an avatar that appears to look like a child.

Just because your experience with persons using child-like avatars only includes sex shops, strip clubs and escort services doesn't mean that you have a sense for the broad picture. It probably has more to do with the places you hang out - since I see child avatars all over the world. I have had fun playing a child avatar on many occasions and I assure you I frequent none of those locations.

If you wish to decry the presence of children on the main grid, I salute you. But if your goal is to limit our creative freedom and fun simply because you cannot understand the difference between operator and avatar, you will not receive much understanding, empathy, or support - on the forums or in-world.

Again, in a perfect world.. yes.

In US today, no.

Read my previous post for more information about 'reasonable' steps and liability.

Seola-

You rock... thanks for the very informative links!

(my searches were thwarted because I was putting "credit card" first.. and using terms like "18" or "minor" along with federal, legal, require law... and basically getting 99.9% adverts for credit from presumably fly-by-night lending institutions I'd never heard of).

One of the things I did stumble into was info on emancipated minors... who at least in CA, are legally able to sign for themselves as young as 14. Of course, if the law considers them adults SL should as well.... posing no threat to adult merchants from that angle.

I still have several of your links to read through yet...

others-

Age-play is an undead horse already beaten beyond recognizability... let the poor nag rest!

lol, Thanks Jopsy!

I left out emancipated simply because no one can sue on behalf, and the courts judged them as adults therefore nullifying the legal angle to even 'hurt children's eyes'.

The last link I added on, is the clincher for me in terms. Defintely very interesting article to read.

As for the search, I always try to post what I've used to search so others can peruse too. Although some links have nothing to do with anything, it helps narrow it down.

I really appreciate the reply so that I know there are child avs in world that aren't being used as sex workers. Like I said, my experience is what I base my perceptions on. And your right, being a sex worker in world, those are the places I frequent.

I am concerned, with the prevalance of attacks and suits against MySpace, LiveJournal, and similar spots over pedophelia related issues that I fear it's just a matter of time before some of the child advocacy groups decend into SL bringing the authorities with them. If they do, no one who allows this type of activity will be safe, so I think it fits in with the overall topic of legal protection and issues involving minors.

I am not confusing operator with av. I'm worried about the operators and my liability for allowing their conduct. That's why I'm banning child avs.

It's an interesting discussion. I appreciate your input, and will look into the other suggestions made about the credit cards as being insufficient.

Ultimately, it's time our society started placing the blame for minors accessing in appropriate contact on the internet where it belongs: with their parents. If parents were paying attention, the kids would be policed by mom and dad and we would have no worries.

I understand your concern, and appreciate your heart for protecting children. Honestly though, I bet you would be protecting more children if you banned adult avatars and let the child avatars into your business. It is pretty unlikely that many real life children are running around with child-like avatars. Most of them are afraid of being caught on the grid and would adopt want to look as mature as possible.

By banning child-like avies you are probably banning the only demographic almost certainly comprised entirely of adults

Ya, this is a bit off topic, but I couldn't help add that if I was running a 'mature' shop of any kind, I'd be banning child avatars as well. I don't have anything personal against child avatars in game, but just like RL, there's a time and a place for 'children or people playing children'.


As it is (just to keep on topic), I'd say our vendors are pretty safe after all, since they have no way of really doing any age verification, regardless of any precautions suggested or taken in the future.

You can ban whomever you wish, if it makes you feel good. Seeing a child avie involved in some sex act would make me cringe too. I might ask them to leave so as not to upset my customers. But just don't start thinking you are protecting any children in the process.

As regards your last statement, while I may or may not agree that vendors here are safe from prosecution, they are certainly not safe because "they have no way of really doing any age verification." Not having a way does not negate their obligation to do so, if such an obligation actually exists.