Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

Key here: "fourteen digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct".

I'm guessing the anime porn was a violation of his parole seeing as how he was on parole for a previous sex offense (sorta like how drinking a beer isn't illegal in-and-of-itself, but drinking beer while on parole for drunk driving is).

This means war for Germany and the rest of the world *again*.

How quickly these miserable retards forget what *real* abuse is.


STFU You sanctimonious sausage sucking puritans, we won the first war, the second war, and we'll win in here too.

He was prosecuted under the PROTECT Act - not the older law banning real images, and not for parole violation.

LOL! Sorry, I just had to laugh. Very funny in a really politically incorrect way.

There's a dangerous precedent, if you ask me.
One thing sticks out to me... and I don't want to get into a whole thing about this. The case happened and I'm not someone in a position to speak on it... is that he was found guilty of 74 counts of child pornography, only 20 of those were anime. There were other photographs and emails etc etc.
While this does set a precedent, it is, I think, along the lines of paraphenalia in drug cases.
It wasn't JUST the anime he was found guilty of. He is also a previously addicted offender.

Yes, this does add some weight to the argument, but it's not the be-all, end-all.

PLEASE, can we not get into another round? It's getting late and I don't think any of us are in the mood.

Edited to add:

"previously addicted offender"? Wow.. I AM tired!
that should be "previously convicted offender".

Well, so much for this thread. (#277)

coco

But if you'll look at the article on the PROTECT Act it says "Does not include drawings, anime, cartoons, and/or comic satire".

Dang...and I just put my stick in the shed and locked the barn too.

What I read on the blog today is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard LL say...

The funny thing here, is that while LL has called for "tolerance" in SL... the do a full about face when it comes to adults pretending they are children... and still doing what they wish.

Let me ask all readers here a simple question: If you and your "child" (note the QUOTES) avatar, wants to have "sex" with ANOTHER "CHILD" avatar... is that OK? It is legal for minors in the RL to have sex with minors, is it not? Don't they teach that in the public schools? Do not the public schools make available material and products intended to help minors have "safe" sex?

Given this plain truth... then if people here want to both pretend they are school aged kids, getting condoms from the school nurse, then getting it on in the back seat of a car... should that be illegal or prevented? If it is legal in the real world, then on WHAT POSSIBLE BASIS can it reasonably seen as something that can or should be prevented in a "virtual" interaction?

This plainly establishes that since the sexual activities of minors in the real world is OK, then it follows that depictions of it can not be any worse. Otherwise we have to start saying that depictions of murder are WORSE than murder, that depictions of rape are WORSE than rape.

Such thinking is clearly bogus beyond any rational thought process.

Now, set aside what pandering and ignorant lawmakers might happen to be saying at the moment... after all, they are the ones that made law that allowed for slavery in the past... right? In other words, the pens of lawmakers, are not guided by divine inspiration....

The only *rational* part of this debate is the protecion of minor children. Period.

The problem with pornographic photography of children having sex is that you had to have a child having sex in order to take the picture!

Banning such images requiring the use of a child to produce them make sense!

What is being discussed now is *SO FAR REMOVED* from that instance that objections must literally come from the twilight zone.

Consider... for there to be a crime, someone must be violated... can anyone tell me, WHO is supposedly being violated by avatar sex of ANY kind?

Without a victim... then where is the actual crime?

The blog article is very careful to talk about photographs of RL children - and not the RP itself. Very important distinction. If any such photos were being handed around via SL, that is indeed a criminal act. And deservedly so, because photos of RL children placed in sexually compromising positions are themselves evidence of crimes committed against those children - at the absolute very least, endangering the morals and safety of a child.

I think it's safe to say everybody wants criminals off the grid, except maybe the criminals. The uproar is being overdone, methinks.

Well, no they did more than that. They banned two people who were cybering as an adult and child avatar.

Up to this point, they only said these things should not be in public or advertised. They had not said that that people using avatars in this way, wherever, were breaking any rules. Now they are, it seems. From Robin's blog post it appears this whole thing has rattled their cages to the point of a total ban.

Which, as I said, is PR because there is no way to enforce it. They can't be in every skybox on the grid. It's probably only to deter it from public view, although that was supposedly banned anyway. But clearly, ignored.

The uproar over the sheep bot scanning your stuff can never be over done, but the uproar over people exchanging sexually explicit photos of children, and the uproar over people simulating sex with children in Second Life, is over done. Now I know where you hang your towel.

well to be fair to LL - they cant enforce No Nazi iconography , etc - either

But if its banned its banned if its reported ..

From the FBI site...

Because of a 2003 federal obscenity law, that’s illegal . The law, designed to help protect children from sexual exploitation, makes it a federal crime to produce or distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, paintings, or any other visual representations involving the sexual abuse of children.

On December 1, Whorley—who had spent time in jail on previous federal child pornography charges—became the first person in the U.S. to be convicted under the 2003 law. On Friday (March 10), he was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $7,400.

Two things here... there is a law against obscene drawings/cartoons depicting the abuse of children and it was enforced.

The question is, then, whether a SL child AV engaged in a sex act constitutes obscene material. If a screenshot of such a situation were printed off, would it be considered child pornography?

I very much think so.

Well, that does look like it is illegal. And I thought it wasn't, because of that older law.

From that FBI site:

Because of a 2003 federal obscenity law, that’s illegal . The law, designed to help protect children from sexual exploitation, makes it a federal crime to produce or distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, paintings, or any other visual representations involving the sexual abuse of children.

On December 1, Whorley—who had spent time in jail on previous federal child pornography charges—became the first person in the U.S. to be convicted under the 2003 law. On Friday (March 10), he was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $7,400.

coco

Woops, I just posted what the previous poster already posted. I'm that surprised, lol.

LL don't need to ban ageplay because, as an illegal activity, it shouldn't happen. Ultimately the responsibility for content and activities lie with us, the users.

Which, incidentally, is Google's line against Viacom - Google isn't publishing any copyrighted clips but it's users are. Should Google be forced to check every clip that is uploaded? Of course no, just as every ISP is not forced to check every file that one of its subscribers emails or hosts on a webpage. ISPs are expected to carry out a certain degree monitoring and to remove any illegal content within a resonable timeframe.

LL is expected to act responsibly and this may mean the having a policy against all age-play, given it's a particularly sensitive subject. But LL is not going to enforce a growing list of rules and policies simply because it doesn't need to. They exist already in RL.

Great minds google and copy'n'paste alike, hehe.

I think she is just trying to explain not to agree with it.

I never liked the concept of age play and i always been agaisted the issues of age role playing. But how did people react to me and other that agreed age role playing was bad.......well lets say their RL views became more noticeable they never knew or cared about the actions that might happened ( they sit in the safe high priced homes married and maybe even have high level postions in the work force. Role players of this type fails to understand laws and do what they like instead.). Look now,LLABS got cought up worse possible PR a company can experience.....in this sick and tasteless sex act. Those that knew some day some type of action would force LLABS to stop age play hit the mark.

Passing phots of under 18 years old is really really sad, and those that think they can do what ever they like ....should think again.

I'd be curious to see how quickly they jump on AR's about this as opposed to AR's about white supremacist groups, many which have been ignored.

Wow, kneejerk kneejerk kneejerk..accusations running wild...did I happen into a religious conversation?

Anyone heard of Voltaire? I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I have a little thing that when I dated I used to send up red flags about the guys. As a mom, I can't let emotions be involved with cold hard facts.

1. If he things pigtails are really really sexy...probably a perv.
2. If he thinks girls in catholic school outfits are sexy...probably a perv.
3. If he likes playing naughty student and teacher/principal..probably a perv.
4. If he likes knee socks...probably a perv.
5. Watch *any* person who refers to a member of the opposite sex a "sweet young thing".

These are my personal guidelines...and as far as dating, well, I had a little girl. Better safe than sorry. How many of you "good" people did I just identify? What you have is a group of people, some who think they are so good, that feel perfectly alright saying "mmm...if she was 18..." "if he was 2 years older"...but SAYING it is ok. Doesn't mean your sick right? I mean, you don't MEAN it right. You REALLY aren't looking at what is considered LEGALLY a child in a sexual manner?

Any man dating a much younger woman..probably a perv. I mean, obviously he likes 'em young. Any women picking up 18 year old guys...yeah, the ONLY reason they are 18 is because you didn't want to be arrested. I like how all these assumptions just roll off.

I got another little newsflash for you, if you are roleplaying in RL in such a way that involves one adult "pretending" to be a kid, you are fantasizing about having sex with a child. So while we're on SL thought crimes...how about yours. JUST because you both ARE adults just means you haven't progressed just yet. Just a couple of closet pervs waiting to make your move on an innocent child. I mean, it's obvious, your fantasizing about sleeping with a kid, in your mind.

Again, the ONLY difference between that couple's imagination and SL is SL makes a better backdrop available.

Quite frankly, I do think that if you RP in RL where one is a child you probably ARE a sicko..but I'll defend your right to do so as long as noone gets hurt. Just like we can all fantasize about murdering people and I'll defend that, as long as noone gets hurt.

probably super super quick until the buzz settles - then once their rep gets restored a lil - very slowly.

actually the russians won the second.
zerg rush ftw.


So anyway back on topic. I wonder what the BKA would find if they looked at the defender of child porns SL account. One hope that RL police agencys look to see what the most ardent defenders of child porn are up to here and why they wish to defend it so?

October why does the pixellated depiction of kiddie porn need to be allowed to continue? Would you invite you mother in to meet your SL avie? How about your neighbor.Boss? Have you talked to them about why this freedom to depict virtual kiddie porn needs saving?

"Originally Posted by Colette Meiji
well to be fair to LL - they cant enforce No Nazi iconography , etc - either

But if its banned its banned if its reported .."


Well I remember over a year ago we had a KKK in the wa. So what did i do? I called LH. what heppened? i had some smart assed no brained LH person ( i would love to post their useless behinds name here) started with their type BS about their own Basis views and smart ass ego LH remarks. I later shouted on LH to get a linden inthe wa what happened? Well type LLABS dream and the mentors that caused most of it. The idea here is LLABS doesnt care, UNTIL that child porn reached the media. Its sad in a way AGe play is dead, because freedom of expression ( child pron sex on sl JUST WRONG and should have been outlawed last year)on sl. But those that pushed the limted and caused the end od ageplay are to blame not those ave no sexual underage players here.

I've pushed #277 into the review queue.

----

I did some quick research, it took a bit of digging to find what the 2003 law was, it has to be the amendment to CDA, this amendment to CDA was made because that particular section of CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court. If the feds tried to enforce this law it would likely make it to the Supreme Court, and there is a good chance the law would be struck down again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act