Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

First, it isn't my question.

Second, the point is exactly as you said just now.

Now, an AV in Second Life is clearly distinguable from a real person, therefore child AV's do not equal chil pornography.



Good job. The best way to show that you have no arguement is to begin name-calling and ugly accusations.

I got tired after the first 5 pages....

No, I think he sums his opinions up nicely.

Go back up a couple posts. Read the whole quote. I don't know why you keep skipping over (C).

You can defend it all you want and go off on my "accusations" or whatever. You have yet to address all the information given to you (as mentioned above) and you have yet to adequately counter it.

It is not the act itself I am defending. I have no real stand on it ether way. It is the liberty of consenting adults to do as they please so long as it harms no others that I am defending.

But go ahead, any other names or accusations you want to throw at me?

Fantastic logic! Well done.

To extend your logic:
So someone who fights for gay rights must be gay?
Someone who fights for civil rights must be black?

Personally, I fight for this because there are a whole load of lies, misinformation, opinions represented as facts and ignorance being spewed on this subject and I do not like it when an innocent group is vilified because of the actions of others and puritanical fervor.

I am not involved in it, I do not like it, I do not condone the club shown in the video and do, in fact believe that those people should be banned, I do think that those sharing actual pronographic material should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law wherever they are.

Oh.. and:

That's not a point. It is the law.

And once again you skip over (C)...

I'm sorry, why were we arguing again?

"C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

An AV in Second Life is clearly identifyable as not a real human being, therefore status of minority does not apply (because it's, you know, not a real person). Also said AV can easily be a "computer-generated hobbit", or a "computer-generated short adult of slight build" or any number of other things the person behind it wants.

So the guy busted for ANIME that had underage sex is different how?

Squeeze, I addressed (C). Go read the whole thing. Click the link I posted. (C) was addressed.

Tybalt, We were arguing because you stated that ageplay is illegal in the US. and claimed that sexual ageplay in SL(including that between two consenting adults who are fully aware that the other person is an adult) was childpornography.

After reading the relevant laws, provided by you, I disagree with that.

I really don't recall what you are talking about (might have overlooked it when his thread was growing by two pages a minute), and I don't care to go back through a dozen and a half pages, so could you be a pal and repost?

Oh okay I see where we go off on the different directions. Age play is not illegal. I am sorry I should have specified. The depiction of child pornography (which SL age play is) is illegal.

Careful, that wall you're all beating your heads against is a load bearer

Night all.

No,I think it's just it is being interpreted differently. Identifiable Minor=Real Person. SL Avis are not real people in my opinion. The behavoir may be sick twisted perverted, and LL has every right to ban it. But I don't see it as a crime, in regards to these laws.
My interpretation may not be correct. But then again neither may yours.

If I tossed a few ambiguous single color brush strokes on a canvas of two objects, one large and one small, in an apparent close embrace.

Some will see a tree and a bush swaying in the wind, while others will see it as child porn.

Still, others will see something even more bizzarr.

Unfortunately, all of us have to deal with what our Government sees, and they usually write laws telling us so...

HELLO?!!! Why isn't the moderator closing this thread? There is obviously NO REASONING with October or Mickey. They keep spouting the same thing about pixel representations of kids not being real kids... well duh! Pixels in jpegs of kids having sex are not real kids either! But, the thing is, you CAN NOT ARGUE THAT WAY! It makes no sense! October and Mickey for some reason refuse to see this. Lets close this thread now... for the sake of October and Mickey, who probably will get some investigators after them if they keep talking the way they are.

EDIT: I will not post anything else in this thread... I'm starting to feel sick.

No it isn't, according to the law you posted.

No, be careful. There is a difference between what is illegal, and what is now banned by LL. There are no rules saying that LL can't ban things from Second Life that are not against the law. If your goal is to work out what LL are banning, you should ask LL, not try to understand international law.

Hello Ylikone, meet Logic.
Logic, meet Ylikone.

Photographs of real children engaged in sexual acts is child pornography, on account of the fact that it's real children involved.

Avatars on a computer game is not child pornography as they are (big shock here) not real children.

Sick sick sick is all I have to say. ANYONE doing this should be FULLY investigated. Props to SL for banning ANYONE who does this kind of crap. There is a line and thats WAYYYY over it.

Neither are the anime featuring children having sex. But they're illegal in the US. DEPICTION

We're not arguing what is banned in SL, we are arguing what is legal/illegal. Tybalt made the claim that sexual ageplay in SL is illegal. Mickey and I have argued (using the very source Tybalt posted) that it is not.

Before I speak on this, may I reiterate the request for a link to the Anime thing? I missed that, too.

Now, Ylikone...

Why can we not argue this way? Is it not relevant to the argument about Child Pornography that there are no children involved?
It makes no sense to you that this is an integral point to the discussion? I don't believe that October would, and I certainly wouldn't, argue that the protection of children is of the utmost importance and that actual child pornography is disgusting and should be stamped out wherever it's found.
Isn't that what it's all about? Isn't this what the laws are for? Protecting children? Or is this about telling consenting adults what they can and can't do?

What, you mean like for same-sex cyber sex? Or for BDSM? Or for anything else you think to be objectionable? How come people have to conform to your norms to avoid the need of counseling?