What is child pornography?

Sorry - just google Miller v. California, it's a pretty well known case - the link I borked up is at Cornell, not really layman speak at all..

How much do you actually know about the law? Also, it's been established that the law we are referring to DOES in fact specify images of children that don't actually exist. I'm still waiting to see differently.



Quite defensive! I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything. I'm trying to figure out why someone would want to find loopholes in something this foul. THAT'S disgusting.



Huh? you're getting me confused with someone else. I'm sure links are all over these forums. However, I'm not going on a scavenger hunt for links to information October claimed to already have available to him.

As of yet I haven't seen any link to an actual government site with information that would counter what I've posted on here.

If I'm wrong it shouldn't be hard to prove it. So far all you can do is accuse me of accusations and of being disingenuous. That doesn't add to the conversation here.

You're KILLING me here.

You're rehashing the same garbage you spewed elsewhere.

"Oh, I'm not saying you ARE a paedophile, but why are you defending them so much?"

Bullshit.

I'm done with you. If you're not going to be honest and actually engage in the debate, what's the use of talking to you?

When you're ready to actually have a conversation, one without lies and bullshit and games, please let me know. Until then, please don't talk to me or about me.

Odd, the above link works fine for me. Anywho.....

http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/S151CONF.pdf

I think you're missing the point. The act itself is victimless, however the law is there to protect children that might be harmed by people who start getting ideas from "victimless illusions".

True there are probably plenty of people that like this junk and would never act on it because they have some sort of self control...although the matter of self control is up for debate because anyone that accepts fantasizing about sex with children is void of reason or logic in my opinion.

Anyway, what about the select people that are no longer satisfied with using the illusion to fantasize? They entertain their sick fantasy to the point where they want to take it a step further...then what?

Children should NEVER be looked at in that light...real or illusions. There might not be a victim in every case, but you can't say having such fantasies and entertaining them doesn't affect your perception of children in general.

That's where the danger is.

I don't remember talking about you at all, actually. Not until you posted and I responded to your post.

Here's the crux of the problem. The state of the law regarding this issue and many other internet related issues is in a state of change due to the newness [in relative legal terms] of the internet generally and 3D virtual worlds in the specific. This is compounded by a multitude of jurisdictions. In the USA alone, what may not be obscene in Massachusetts may very well be obscene in Kansas. Then you compound this with the understanding that...say.. pick 5 countries: USA, UK, Germany, Brazil and Singapore. You will probably get five different definitions.

In the US [as well asmost of theEnglish speaking countries] our laws derive from statutes, which are drafted by legistaltures [e.g. US Congree, British Parliament etc.] and case law which are decisions rendered by higher courts [e.g. in the US our federal and state Courts of Appeal and ultimately the state or Federal Supreme Courts.] The phenomonem of Avatar cyber sex is too new to be adequately addresed by either most legislative bodies and the court systems.

The argument that AV cyber sex [with an apparant "underage" AV ] is not child porn is based, as I understand it, on the premise that so long as an adult is the typist behind the AV that there is no sex or prurient nudity involving an actual child, its legal. The opposite side maintains that because AV cyber cyber sex with an apparant underage AV is DEPICTED, even if no actual child or image of an actual child is involved makes it illegal.

I am an attorney but I do not specialize in this area, so I am ignoarant as the rest of us. If I really had the time and/or interest to research this, I would specifically start with Law Review articles on the subject. Often, an intelligent and WELL RESEARCHED Law Review article can actually lead the way, as sort of a road map, on where the law is headed or should be headed on new legal issues.

For right now - the present time, my worthless advice is to err on the side of caution and ASSUME that AV cyber sex or sexual images or prurient nudity with or of apparantly underage AVs is or could be determined obscene. THAT is the prudent approach and it seems to be the approach LL is taking.

This is NOT what the OP of this thread wants to hear, obviously, but that is my simple and honest opinion on the matter.

Okay..flame away.

Dear Lindens,

I'm writing to offer a second opinion on your decision "to not to allow the ... promotion of age play or related activities" in Second Life. In an effort to keep things as concise as possible, I will try and keep this letter brief.

First of all, I would like to introduce myself. At the risk of being vague, I'm a 25 year old designer from New England. I'm well educated, involved in my community, close to my family, and respected by my peers. I also build and design for one of the largest companies working within SL today. So why don't I use my real name? Because I feel like Second Life is no longer a safe space for me to speak my mind. As an active ageplayer, I feel that your new policies take away my status as an integral part of the SL community.

Let me explain; Second Life is a world that allows people to push the boundaries of their own experience. In SL, I have met people that I never would have encountered in my real life community. And, while I don't always agree with what these people say or how they represent themselves, my life has been enriched by each and every one of them. My experience in SL has been that of a world traveller - a no-holds-barred roller coaster ride through the incredible tapestry of human experience. And for that, I'm incredibly thankful.

Of course it goes without saying that I've met more than just soccer moms and eagle scouts. I've run into strippers, furries, prostitutes, lolitas, masters, slaves, and people that defy description entirely. Their jobs and predilections may not acceptable to the community at large, but these are not bad people. These are the people that make up Second Life - people that are not necessarily accepted out in the real world. People that come to SL to find sanctuary and a like-minded community. And that's the most important thing that I have taken away from these meetings - that these are people; not just two-dimensional stereotypes of perversion.

Which brings me to my second point. As an ageplayer, I feel that you are unfairly discriminating against a group of people that are not breaking any laws. You state that "the Second Life community as a whole has made it clear that it views such behavior to be broadly offensive." I would counter that, as a small community, ageplayers have not had the chance to defend themselves. The forums are a nasty place to be an ageplayer. I've been verbally abused more times that I would like to recall - to a point where I feel like the public boards are not a place for minorities to be heard. Please consider this when you make such far-reaching community decisions in the future.

As for the ethics of ageplayers, we are not pedophiles - indeed, ageplay is in an entirely different category. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to explain why I ageplay. My av is a twelve year old girl. For the most part, I enjoy the freedom that this gives me within SL. Most "grown ups" leave me alone. I'm free to explore and engage with people and things in a more innocent manner. I don't have to worry about impressing the people that I meet with all of my in-world knowledge and skills. In fact, when people interact with my child-av, I find that they have no preconceived expectations of me at all. And it's a wonderful feeling. There is, however, another side to my story. My child-av has a daddy. He provides me with a wonderful sense of comfort, protection, and safety. He's also the only avatar that I engage with sexually. Please understand that this is simply a dynamic that we both enjoy - he gets to be the caretaker, the only man in my life, and I get to have somebody that loves me unconditionally, somebody that will always provide care, support, and affection. Think about the relationship without the words "daddy" or "ageplay." These are just terms that we use to get our meaning across. In the end, it's just about the relationship, and how we choose to portray it.

Many ageplayers have relationships similar to my own. Of course, exceptions must be made for every community. There are plenty of people who engage in "ageplay sex" for the money or for other inscrutable reasons. Still, this is a form of pageantry above all else. We are adults playing with our thoughts. We are not pedophiles. We do not want to have relationships with real children. We do not want to commit incest in real life. Of course, that doesn't mean that dangerous people don't use ageplay for more nefarious reasons. I cannot stand here and swear to you that there are absolutely no pedophiles among our ranks. But that is no different from any other community. Unfortunately, there are pedophiles in our school systems, in our churches, on out streets and in our communities. Such behaviour is completely immoral, and should never be condoned. Thankfully, SL has decided to implement a system that will prevent actual minors from being put into potentially harmful adult situations. However, ageplayers are not minors. They are consenting adults who have chosen to wear costumes. In the words of Stephen Northport, ageplayers "are outside the bounds of society's tolerance, and in the final analysis, it's because they wear a more convincing costume than some pom-pom-wielding stripper."

So please consider your stance before making this standard SL policy. Is it really appropriate to dictate the costumes we choose to wear? The adult relationships that we choose to foster? Is it fair to take away one of the only communities available for adults that are interested in the emotional aspects of ageplay? Perhaps these images are reprehensible to you. Perhaps you're dealing with a minority with which few can sympathize. Perhaps ageplay is outside of the bounds of good taste and understanding. But I know that it exists for a reason. Please don't dismiss an entire community, just because it is unpopular among the masses. Remember, 15 years ago, you would probably be under pressure to ban all gays from SL. 50 years ago, there would be no blacks. And if your judgement truly rests upon the fact that "The depiction of sexual activity involving minors may violate real-world laws in some areas," please also consider that obscenity is illegal in a good part of the United States - while bills against "virtual child porn" have have already been struck down by the ninth circuit of the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

In closing, I would like to thank you for your time. I hope that you choose to retain the open and inclusive spirit of SL by continuing to foster the tolerant attitude which has made Second Life so very popular.

All the Best, and I look forward to your response,
Sugar

Would it make sense to limit this sort of activity to a few very specific sims? I know that it is quite illegal to view sexual ageplay scenarios in some countries, but perhaps this would be a non-issue if these areas were more clearly delineated and monitored?

Just a though,
Sugar

Let's go back to Robin's blog entry for a moment...



No mention of the words "Child Pornography" here. Just two adults engaging in an Adult/Child sexual simulation. They were both summarily banned. Whether such a thing is or is not child pornography is entirely beside the point.




Note the fact that she goes out of her way to distinguish two specific areas:

1) Engaging in, advertising or promoting locations or activities involving the depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving minors

2) Possession distribution of real-world pronographic images in Second Life that appear to involve minors.

Looks pretty clear to me that the law has been written. The law according to Linden Lab. That's all the law we need. I strongly disagree that this sets precedent for loss of other freedoms. This is a freedom that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Peace, Love and Sandcastles

For informational purposes. If you dig through the federal laws cited below, you will find the legal definition of child pornography.

1. Child Pornography, Child Luring, and Related Activities
   1. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, 2252A (sexual exploitation of children)
      
   2. 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (transportation of minors or travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct)
      
   3. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A (obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children)
      
   
   
2. Obscenity
   1. 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(A) (using telecommunications device to make, create, or solicit, and transmit any obscene comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication)
      
   2. 18 U.S.C. § 1465 (using interactive computer service for purpose of sale or distribution of obscene material)
      

Taken from Appendix A of Prosecuting Computer Crimes published in Febuary 2007 by the US Department of Justice (chief editor: Scott Eltringham).

This forum isn't for general discussion; there are many Resident Sites where this discussion is appropriate — Resident Answers is for Resident-to-Resident help. I'll close this thread...