What will get banned next?

Ageplay has been banned. Gambling has been banned.

What is LL likely to go after next, and which country will it be illegal in to allow them to say "it's because some other country made it illegal it that we're not allowing it"?

The activities aren't banned.. just advertising for them is.

As far as I'm concerned, they'll just refusing advertising for anything sex based... and not define if they are talking about sex or genders

If we've any luck at all, threads like this one will be the next thing banned.

Well, they've gone after people using approved scripts to send landbots home, and suspended at least one of them, while at the same time promoting, supporting, and glorifying landbot users. (No wonder the landbot users are so arrogant - LL loves 'em.)

coco

Edit: I'm an idiot. I just realized, for all we know, the landbot creators or users ARE Lindens, or are friends of Lindens.

Hmm Virtual Drinking is next along with DUI & FUI.
Then there's Licencing of firearms and banning of automatic weapons & handguns

They really suspended someone for ejecting a landbot from their own land?
I guess the next stage is to ban landbots using the banlist (less lag than those scripts)
If they then do something about that, we can all put up no access lines. Wonder how many corporations would be interested when the grid becomes nothing more than interconnected banlines.

This forum if we keep posting questions for discussion rather than help for in-world issues.

This is a reminder to myself as much as it is for posters who want to engage in these types of discussions. Take 'em to a resident site.

Not the kind of activities I do to be honest, but I can see where this'll lead to.

It'll just be more mothering rules, because remember, you're not 'adult' enough to make your own consensual decisions in life. You're all children, and Lindens/government are your parents.

Continuation of 'mothering' in general have no positive effects over a long-term, it just makes people more stupid and prone to doing stupid things.


This is one reason I don't posses respect for law or authority.

Well, I have respect for law and authority, LOTS of it, and I figure in the case of ageplay and gambling LL really had no choice in the matter.

If they don't have respect for law, they will lose SL. None of us would like it much when the feds take up all the servers and refuse to give them back, would we?

In additiion, bear in mind that people can still participate in ageplay and gambling (at their own risk); they just can't advertise them using LL's service.

coco

Agreed. RA is beginning to resemble a "give 'em an inch, they take a mile" sortof thing. I think we owe it to each other to back down just a bit, and return RA to its regularly scheduled program.

Respect and abiding are two different things.

I didn't know it was just for advertising, I just took what the thread title said as is, since I don't do this kind of stuff myself I wouldn't know, but it's still of concern to me since it's just a step further into ruining peoples' freedoms.

"People's freedom" is a concept related to citizenship and government authority within an established country.

It has nothing to do with customers and their vendor. The vendor has the freedom to create any product and set the rules for its use; customers have the freedom not to buy the product.

Civil liberties is an issue I care deeply about (I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU), but it has no application to Second Life. Second Life is a technological product, a web hosting service, not a country. You are a customer, not a citizen at the mercy of that government.

Im guessing banning the advertizing of escort services will be next.

We'll come visit you in Prison.......

I'm thinking NOT, because I'm thinking escort services are more akin to phone sex than to rl prostitution. So - my question is - what are the laws vis-a-vis phone sex?

coco

Something I just posted in a related thread applies here:

To interject a more general observation her: This whole brouhaha exists because of the prevalent concept of a "victimless crime." Who gets hurt in gambling? MAYBE the gambler, but in general he/she is not complaining and doesn't feel like a victim or claim to be one unless the cards are marked or the dice loaded or the game otherwise rigged. Mostly, people gamble for excitement: adrenaline rush at what they consider an affordable price. True, there are gambling addicts, but there are sex addicts too, and no-one is making sex illegal (at the moment, anyway).

Gambling is not the only victimless crime. Most any personal "vice" qualifies. Essentially everybody reading this has a practice or weakness that is illegal somewhere in the world.
In fact, if no-one in particular or society in general is suffering harm from an action, society (and the laws protecting it) has no legitimate justification for banning that action. There are only self-appointed moralists and other assorted scum who have decided they have the right and duty to tell others what they may or may not do and act on that. THEY are the enemy.

As long as the concept of a victimless crime - an action where no-one is hurt except possibly the person(s) performing the act who are willing to pay whatever the cost is of doing it - is generally accepted in the world, the kind of nonsense people are railing at here is going to come up again and again. And SL is going to have to deal with that nonsense.

Don't blame LL for restricting your rights in SL; in general they seem to be trying to keep things as loose and free as they can. Blame the concept of victimless crime, and the zealots, lobbyists and demagoguing politicians who will exploit it for their own purposes. They create the conditions and the laws in which SL must find a way to survive.

There is hope, but it is necessary to do something about it. Prohibition came and went. Free-thinking became acceptable. Sexual titillation in the media achieved legality to the point of becoming overdone - my apologies to those who don't like, but I personally rather like seeing naked ladies all over the place. Even homosexuality has become socially tolerable. So, as I said, there is hope. But don't attack LL for this problem; that is not where the problem lies. Address RL. THAT is where the problem lies.

Thank you Beebo. I am not always in agrement with the ACLU, but from your position, that statement carries a lot of value and insight.

I dont think ageplay visibility was banned becuase of RL laws.

I think gambling advertizing was banned becuase of the possibility of RL laws.

Again I said the advertizing will be banned not the practice.


Back before the internet -
On TV- phone sex was only advertized late at night and not directly.

Magazines and the local paper didint advertize it. Only the Local scene papers carried the ads in the classifieds.

Now I think its mainly advertized on the internet becuase I never see ads anymore.

I am still wondering about the escorts versus phone sex thing. Seems to me whatever laws affect it would be the ones governing phone sex, rather than prostitution.

As for the ageplay, I misled somewhat when I threw that into the laws thing, because what I really think is John Edwards had something to do with the sudden quelling of that.

He was taken to task by Fox News (I believe it was), for having a campaign headquarters in SL, land of the ageplayers, among other things. Shortly thereafter, there was no more advertising of ageplayers allowed (ostensibly).

My little theory - with no evidence sustaining it whatsoever except the propinquity of events - is that someone in the Edwards campaign may have looked into this and asked LL about it. In any case, being known as a haven for age play, with all that connotes, and being cited on the news for it, isn't good for LL.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for LL to require anything having to do with the visual representation of adults having sex with minors to no longer advertise it on LL's service. (I realize there are people who don't ageplay in a sexual way at all, but I would hope they can advertise their things in some other fashion.)

coco

I agree that its not even phone sex. Though with voice it will be phone sex. The typing stuff is even more removed.

But - I dont see legality as why advertizing will be banned. I see it as a Clean up SL for business and new arrivals thing.

I think loss of advertizing will hurt SL escorting a lot less than it will hurt gambling. The people who want to hire escorts will find them.

They can do it the old fashioned way...walk the streets.

It is not the result of victims that is the issue in this subject, it is the result of money that makes it to real life because of unregulated/unlicensed gambling operations. This is the legal point.

The product is affected by the government, and the customers are in-turn effected by it, so it's related. Customers also have an opinion of the product. A product that goes against it's customers' wishes is just plain silly.

I understand that they put this into play so they won't get into trouble with where-ever the servers are located's laws. What I fear is that it may go further than this, and destroy other aspects of the product while the Lindens just agree to whatever they're told and not do something like re-locate their servers to a country that doesn't posses such restrictions to consensual activities.

There's my say. It means I'm a concerned customer.




Har har. =p

Sorry that I'm not like the majority of people who are brainwashed into thinking that something's 'bad' literally because it's against the law. Like it being illegal for homosexual, sexual acts in some states of America.

No ,you are correct. There are bad laws ,stupid laws, even immoral laws. But you made a generalized statement, hence the response.You may not have meant what you said, but that type of anti social thinking is becoming more common in today's world.

Tolerable, you say. Interesting. Interesting indeed. A victimless "crime", you say? Interesting. Interesting ideed.

I'm happy as can be that you enjoy seeing naked women wherever and whenever you can, by the way. Interesting. Interesting indeed.

By the way, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for tolerating me. I feel so very special. Enjoy those ladies who aren't victims. They must really turn you on, and I'm certain that they do it just for you, and that they are not at all victims of any wrongdoing. How can they be, after all? They're just images on a television screen.

zk