Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Last time I checked, intelligence was valued higher than a post count.

You took my sarcasm out of context.

The earlier poster was implying that someone seeing an event in SL by accident could be arrested in RL even when it was created on purpose by an unknown 3rd party.

Yes, I realize that now. Oops.

Arrested, probably not, but their account could definitely be closed, LL doesn't take the time to investigate every case, if you get caught, you're out, no case or trial. In fact that's why this whole incident doesn't make any sense to me, LL always says it's up to the community to regulate themselves, they almost never step in (Unless it carries a threat of losing them money), and one thing I've noticed since I've been here is when it comes to important issues LL only tells the community what they want to hear rather than what needs to be said, so as not to shake the community which provides their main income. Not a very ethical practice, but it's definitely effective.

Oh? really...........Nice alt did you pay for this one

people and these stupid post and switch users games..

...

It's a false comparison, because just "seeing" something happen is a quite different event to having data describing it sent to you over the internet.

People can't be expected to walk around with their eyes closed "just in case", but the law has no problem telling you that you should just stop playing SL just in case. To people within SL, it's a world, a community and possibly a livelihood - but to the people outside SL and within RL legal systems, it's just one of thousands of online activities, which most average people don't do at all.

You are over-reaching my argument to an ILLogical conclusion if anything...let me just outline the limits as I see them, as they relate to all things ageplay;

Real life child abuse
Should obviously remain illegal as it harms the child. Arguments that the child "wanted it" always imply to me that the child has been abused since birth, and knows no better. Even if there is some wierd genetic defect out there that results in a sexually driven child being born, maintaining a sexual relationship with a child in a society that regards it as taboo is in itself damaging to the child. There is no way out of this one, the child is always harmed.

Taking pictures of child abuse
Simply perpetuates the abuse...the child is aware that the pictures are taken, and are out there, being looked at by SOMEone. It again harms the child, and again should remain illegal - is also prima facia evidience of real abuse of course

Looking at pictures of child abuse
I start to drift here. The argument that harm is done to the child by the viewer is for me, less clear - the original harm was done by the abuser and the taker of the pictures. Also, the argument that looking at such pictures LEADS to abuse is unclear. It is often pointed out that rapists (ad the adult OR child variety) have pornography - but for that argument to be relevant, you need to have a comparable number of NON-rapists and find out how much pornography they have too. I don't think you'd find much difference. In any case...punishing a crime BEFORE it is committed really IS where the slippery slope you mentioned starts. If looking at child pornography makes you into a child rapist, and if I assume that you are a normal heterosexual male - how many images of child pornograhpy do I have to show you to turn you into a pedophile?

Simulated child abuse
By this I am assuming that two adults are in control of the characters. Seriously, where is the harm? This only gets frowned upon because it offends others...there is NO other reason - other than again, said adults go on to commit crimes against children, which has NEVER been proven satisfactorily. Millions of americans own a gun. Thousands of them will regularly hunt wildlife...but only a tiny fraction will use it on a human being.

Pictures of simluated child abuse
Now we really ARE getting silly...I mean, apart from anything else, who decides how "real" is "real"? Between photo-realistic images of abuse, and a simple line drawing of two stick figures, one larger than the other, there is an awful lot of space for interpretation...a lot of people will have seen sexualised "joke" versions of popular cartoon series (the main one seems to be the Simpsons, though I can never figure out why). I can't see anyone moving from Lisa Simpson to se with a real child...and again, if they do...punish THAT.

And lastly...I do think I owe Linden Labs an apology over my comments comparing sex with violence...it is not their fault that our laws are as they are...

Child abuse - illegal
Movies of child abuse - illegal
Cartoons of child abuse - illegal

Murder - illegal
Movies of murder - entertainment
Cartoons of murder - entertainment

Something, somewhere is badly out of line.

If only it were:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/21/take_action_julie_am.html

So you are now some kind of anti-violence crusader? Or is this what you're really after?

Child abuse - illegal
Movies of child abuse - entertainment
Cartoons of child abuse - entertainment

Murder - illegal
Movies of murder - entertainment
Cartoons of murder - entertainment

If you forced me to choose a position;

Child abuse - illegal
Movies of child abuse (real) - illegal
Movies of child abuse (fake) - entertainment
Cartoons of child abuse - entertainment

Murder - illegal
Movies of murder (real) - illegal
Movies of murder (fake) - entertainment
Cartoons of murder - entertainment

At least it would be consistent - oh and for completeness, showing ANY of the above to a REAL child - illegal

I find a few things interesting about the debate on this -

No one is willing to defend sexual age play on its own - they have to group it with something else. So that those agaisnt it want to stamp out lots of things.

No one is willing to come out and say they are/were a sexual age player. Perhaps out of fear of being banned I suppose.

Most of the defenders are legitamately not into age play but also fighting for freedom - "I hate your opinion but ill fight to defend your right to have one" types.

Some people - on both sides - will say anything, no matter how irrational to "win" the debate.

Well Colette, I used to Role Play with my fiancee in a manner that some might consider Age Play of the sexual nature. Of course this was in a text based environment and on occasion over the phone.

The Characters involved were generally not very far apart age wise - in some cases however the apparent age was not far off, yet the actual age was (immortal characters). for pure Human characters this never went below the age of sixteen. Non-humans? Never went below fourteen (most common non-human: anthro).

Now, I'd like to make it clear to all reading this that this particular form of RP has since ceased.

That said, it has been my observation - and the reason at all that such RP occurred - that the active age of sexuality has been moving in such a trend as those below the age of fourteen are now active - though not openly. The same can be said of the onset of puberty. I personally recognize and accept this fact as the current progression of humanity.

One day this entire argument will be moot - while that day is not today and while we should do all we can to protect children for as long as we can, we must also accept the fact that these changes are happening .... and that barring genetic manipulation or keeping a very tight reign on our children, it will eventually become the norm.

I would like to add to this that I do not age play at all in Second Life, nor anywhere else. Yes, at one time I did similar on other services and over the phone with my fiancee, however that is in the past. I am however an active furry and I do deeply resent some of the arguments used to combat this policy. while I have little doubt that others will eventually be targeted, the time for those debates is not now.

I've said my piece on this subject and have no doubt that someone will come along to rip this post to shreds in an attempt to find some fault or other such nonsense. to those that do, know that all you do is needlessly show how very afraid of these changes you really are.

This doesn't really have anything to do with it, to my way of thinking. The issue here is adults and what they, with their adult brains and greater strength and powers of manipulation, believe is all right for them to do. I would rather keep the social taboo in place and not blunt its impact by digital depictions.

We are all part of the human family, and though one may not have children, the responsibility and respect for others - and especially immature or helpless others - is something we all need to take part in. It truly is "Our World" and I don't mean Second Life.

Since you were brave enough to stand up, I wont be the one to rip your post to shreds.

I do disagree about the average age of sexual activity going down. I dont think if charted over the course of human history this age has moved much at all.

What has changed is the age we find acceptable for adults to have sex younger people has rasied. For example 300 years ago a grown man having sex with a 15 year old girl in Western Europe wouldnt have risen an eyebrow.

For reasons that Osprey has said - Becuase adults have the power to manipulate and children do not have the ability to truley consent.

I wouldnt be surprized if the current age of majority rises a few hundred years in future, to 21 or even older. Not that Ill be around to know.

I think it's got a lot to do with the ages concerned, if we are talking RP 2 14yo's in love, well some might object, but so what, but if we are talking sexual involvement of 2, 4, 6, 8yo kids I think you will find many more opposed so it depends on where the line for age play is being drawn. The line is grey and the chars involved are grey too (unless you specify an age somewhere). Perhaps someone should do a poll on the age to consider sexual ageplay bad taste to find out what we all anonomously think?

As an escort, I have never been asked to do more than the classic 16yo schoolgirl look and that is as young as I would ever do.

LL have been forced by someone to shift the line, probably on legal advice, what company can ignore legal advice nowdays and risk voiding any litigation insurance? So protest all we like but unless our lawyers beat their's it's not going to change. Maybe the items concerned will have to be offered for sale only in private areas where LL and wowsers don't care/want to look.

LL have tried to do this lowkey, maybe the community should make a big thing about it, big virtual protests etc, get the international media involved, then have the line moved further again? I suspect not.

Maybe outside forces want this to get bigger too, the competiton who will have the income of all users paying monthly as well as firm ties with big corporations and drawcards like well laid out grids, zoning, less prim restrictions, less lag, vehicles that work, jobs for all would like nothing better than to see SL slandered and dragged through the mud before their release. So maybe LL know this and have to choose their slice of pie they will fight for now and take some acceptable losses.

So no viking helmets, torches & axes?

Where the "slippery slope" comes in is from establishing a very destructive precedent - a precedent for making general pariahs of people and banning them because of what you surmise they may be thinking or how they appear or what opinions they may have or what they do in private that hurts no-one else. Once you have established that principle as an appropriate basis for banning or dehumanizing other people, you have established a principle that can be used against ANYBODY. And that includes you. It is this dangerous and ultimately vicious principle that many people are opposing, and why the furries and Goreans and what-have-you get "dragged" into the issue. They are "dragged into it" only because the issue applies to EVERYBODY; they just happen to be the most likely next targets. Sexual ageplayers happen to be the handiest and easiest target of all.

Think you're safe? Think again. Since we have all been talking about sex taboos, and are still a long way from attacking people for political views or religious beliefs (which are only further down the list, not out of the question by any means), let's stick with just sex for now. Ever engage in oral sex with anybody? Well, you committed sodomy, described in some laws still on the books as "that abominable crime against nature," and there are people who consider you unpardonably depraved and want to be rid of you and your kind. They would gladly barge into your bedroom to catch you in the act, if they could. Ever engage in sex while unmarried? Fornication; plenty of people out there who want to make you an outcast for that too. If you or someone you know had sex with their girl friend when they were two days past their 18th birthday and she was two days short of hers, they committed statutory rape, and in a lot of places could risk jail time and being registered as sex offenders.

There is some aspect of your existence that someone, somewhere has already decided make you evil and fair game for scapegoating and attack, and is only hoping they get their chance to head up a mob that would come after you for it.

The problem here is not protecting pedophiles or whatever; child-molesting is a despicable crime. The problem here is protecting everyone - and SL - from any demagogue who can inflame a mob to go after some target of the demagogue's choice. First one narrow slice of the population is attacked, then another, then another. The demagogues'motives don't have to "noble," either, it can be for the basest imaginable personal agendas. That doesn't matter; mob rule does.

I'm glad SL is cracking down on public "advertising" for simulated child-molesting; it is repugnant to almost everyone and plenty of people have very good reasons for objecting to having it shoved in their face. Doing that is disturbing the peace. What we don't want is an Inquisition growing out of it that can then be applied to other targets and from which no-one ultmately is safe.

One difference:

Murder - the victim isn't always entirely "innocent." That is, there is generally a good guy and a bad guy, to one degree or another, entertainment-wise. Murder is also sometimes self-defense. (If the victim is innocent, then the movie revolves around that, in total sympathy to the victim.)

Child abuse - the victim is always, by definition, completely innocent. That's why most people take a dim view of the manipulation of child abuse images for casual entertainment purposes.

coco

Duly noted.

In the event of an Inquisition, you can expect to see me strongly opposing it. In the meantime, since there are no signs whatsoever of an impending Inquisition, perhaps it's a bit inflammatory to "warn" people about it?

Wow.
Soo sad.

Second Life is a virtual phenomenon with great promise. You can instantly have contact with people from all over the globe, in a way that conveys both a sense of place and presence. One commentator from the NPR radio program "The Infinite Mind" which did a four part series on Second Life, called his experience "spiritual." Philip Rosedale, the creator of Second Life is recently quoted to have said that his intention of Second Life was that it was going to be like real life, only "kinder and gentler." The reform of second life to ban images and situations portraying sexualized images of children and child abuse is welcome.
The creators of Second Life with some wisdom attempted to create a community where people could participate and not be exposed to offensive or hateful content. Last January during Martin Luther King day the sun over the mainland shone with an image of Dr. King inside it. Community standards appear to be established to disallow hateful content directed against any group, but also to allow people to create their own environments so long as they are not engaging in any kind of racism. The rating system appears to be an effort at tranparency so that people can participate in the kind of content that they wish to, and avoid other kinds of content they might abjure. This system has been broken. Sexualized images of children and of abuse are a form of hatred against children.

There is no common usage of the term mature -outside of SL that includes sexual activity of children. For new users and older users of Second Life this is objectionable and dishonest. Profiles, product advertisements, and places that boast of sexual activity of children should be either disallowed or given a clearer and more understandable rating in acknowledgement that in most contexts mature means something different, and that images of child sexuality are illegal.
-Since it has appeared in the Press that the Dutch may sue Second Life, may one well what options Linden Labs really has.. People who are legitimate users of child avatars should not pay the price, this is why they also need to be front and center in their objections to these practices. The standard that should be applied to avatars are not primarily how they look, but the language that they use about themselves and the activities they engage in.
Blatant statements about sexual situations, prostitution, and other activities should not be allowed in advertisements or profiles, particularly when the person has used language identifying themselves as a "child, age 9", or "schoolgirl" for example. Individuals who are using child avatars beyond that to engage in "mature situations" would be subject to the complaint process.
There has been so much positive press about Second Life, and it would be an embarrassment for all of us who value it, when the headlines are about a real perpetrator who has committed a heinous crime, and has a collection of imagery of child abuse that he has made with Second Life.
Anyone who uses the internet for more than games can easily discover that there are real problems with childhood sexual abuse. People from all walks of life are arrested for pedophilia, and computers are a major venue for child pornography. The American Psychological Association has recently focused on its website on how the sexualization of young girls damages childhood development. A public venue such as "Second Life" should not be a corner where such practices are condoned as "free speech" or a "game." This is not a right wing or fundamentalist viewpoint. If thinking about or imagining sexual activity of children is something you enjoy, you might seriously consider how you relate to "the real world" Kudos to Linden Labs for finally taking action.

Thanks, Pablo, for the very helpful post.

Getting open portrayal or or beckoning to a practice repugnant to practically everyone in SL or out of SL is a good step forward, both for SL and its citizens. Quality of life improves.

Also important: Get the kids out of the adult grid, too. Suggestions welcome.