Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

Laugh of the day! Thanks.

And you honestly can not tell the difference between an avatar on Second Life and a real, live human being?

No, it was a disgusting attack, but that's neither here nor there.

It's not semantics. The law clearly states that it must be either of or indistinguishable from a minor engaged in a sex act. It clearly says that. Please refer to my previous post asking whether a Second Life Avatar was indistinguishable from a real person.

And, lastly, I don't have to. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't have to prove it's legality, you gotta prove it's illegality, if that's your argument.
As far as SL goes, it's against the rules and that's not what I'm arguing.

As far as RL goes, I don't think you're so disingenuous as to say that real life ageplay is illegal, are you?

Also.. um... I thought we were talking about child pornography laws in this section of the argument, not ageplay.

You're not getting it...or your denying it. Maybe you should IM that one person about getting help for your problem.

Reading law in an SL forum is something I tend to place into my "Things That Make My Inner Dilettante Go Hmm" Folder. I am neither a member of the bar nor a qualified legal researcher to know how to correctly interpret law, or to know if I have all the applicable ones laid out before me on my desk. Actual photos of children is, or course, a legal no-brainer.

For the rest of it then, in quoting US law, is there an implicit claim that LL did not consult their legal folks to determine the legality of sexual ageplay under US law the last few times the issue arose? It's not as if any of this is unexpected. Somehow I find it not credible that LL wouldn't have given the legalities at least a cursory glance at some point during the reams of previous debate.

Oh they may have looked over it. Just like they've looked over their past 3 updates to make sure they worked and didn't cause more issues.

Well, exactly - you're no lawyer, but the people who convicted the anime importer were.

And the part that I'm referring to:



Note the "or" - that means that c) can still make something illegal even if the "indistinguishable" bit in b) doesn't apply.

YAY! A Hitler reference! SAHWEET!
Always nice when someone calls another person a Nazi in an argument.

Ok, SqueezeOne, the "legal evidence" has been explained to you and a new question has been posed. So I'll ask you outright.

Do you consider a SecondLife avatar to be indistinguishable from a real person?

Uhuh? I know of atleast 1 for definite.

Age verification just won't work. All a kid needs to do is enter their mum or dad's passport or driving licence number and their away. Mine was originally a hypothetical question - Linden Labs can never totally exclude under age people; it's just not possible unfortunately. It's up to parents to do it from their end.

Read the post above your's, Mickey. Your question is irrelevant.

No! You're taking it out of context.
Earlier, they define minor as a real person. It does NOT apply!

And you accused someone else of playing semantics!

YEESH!


Huh?

Nice job at ducking the question by referencing something that has nothing to do with said question.

I must admit, you are socially conscious for a slave owner.

Yeah, edited it to say what I meant. I was referring to the post that quoted this...

B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

read C. I see this little part keeps getting overlooked by the kiddie advocates.

Your question is irrelevant since the point you were trying to make was that in order to be considered child porn the image had to be indistinguishable from a real child.

Sorry if you want to cling to your...pasttime, but the facts have been presented multiple times.

yeah...I'm also not an investor.

With respect, the consequences of making sure an update works and does not cause more issues within Second Life are rather different from the consequences of being in violation of federal internet pornography laws. At first glance, this answer also does not appear to be a credible evaluation.

So having a child AV is disgusting?

First a nazi, now an ageplayer! Will the accusations never stop?

If you read the whole thing, part (c) is irrelevant to the topic at hand, since we are talking about computer generated images.

All I ever saw were small avatars...

Those are supposed to be kids?

Their not even REAL...

You mean it's ILLEGAL for mathmatical computations to depict visual copulation of an apparent Virtual Height Variable?

What the F*** IS WRONG WITH EVERYONE!!!

I repeat...

Their NOT F***ING REAL!!!

Maybe everyone should wait 10 minutes before their reply and see if cooler heads can win the day...

You've made your opinions on that topic pretty clear.
You accusing someone of something you think is disgusting, regardless of whether the person finds it disgusting or not, is still pretty awful.
Calling someone who enjoys performing oral sex a c*cksucker is still an insult, even if they have an actual penis in their actual mouth at that time.

You're digging, sir.

Funny, I never saw anything saying "except when computers make the image".

And why else would someone defend simulating child sex to this degree if they weren't partaking in it themselves?

I'm just saying, they probably addressed it with the same dillegence they address almost any issue.

For example, almost anybody who watches or reads the news with any regularity could tell you that gambling online is not legal in the US. LL decided to ignore that until the feds came knocking on their door. And even now it's still permitted.

You might want to read through the whole thread first...

Pretty uncalled for. All any of you are doing now is posting kneejerk and inflamatory replies. Exactly what benefit is coming from this?