Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

He answered the first question - read back.

The other questions, as we are talking about the law, could probably be intepreted as insinuating something not very nice about October.

Have you heard about slander?

Lets get back on topic without getting personal.

I've pushed #277 into the review queue. Please don't troll folks.

----

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

Wow, so now that you've just basically called all defenders perverts, do you have logical, non-emotionally based reasons for why it should be banned?

One thinks that maybe those who want it removed so badly just want temptation removed from their reach...

It's really easy to throw out such an insult...Saves you from having to think up a logical and reasonable rebuttal as opposed to an emotional, kneejerk one. And I'm sure you don't like being considered a closet perv for your views any more than most of us.

Let me ask when was this written, and when was it updated?

I really have no opinion on what constitutes pornography on the internet and my "opinion"
doesn't mean anything in this endless discussion even though I am a trained social worker. What I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases are committed by family members of the child and not by predators lurking in the bushes. Second Life has nothing or little to do with it. A person is not going to all of a sudden become a child molester because of what they have experienced in Second Life. It is a mental disorder that develops at an early age.

All of you alarmists and Save the Children people might want to contact your local Childrens Protective Services agencies and volunteer your services if you are really concerned.

I have nothing against people expressing their opinions here but to even suggest that what two adults do in Second Life is wrong leaves me shaking my head.

LL seem to be relying on this incident as a justification for the extreme privacy intrusion of their new age verification process.

But:

- age verification wouldnt stop this, the participants were both over 18

- if by investigation LL could ascertain their true ages why are we being asked to hand over even more data?

LL cares and will act when required but we are ultimately responsible for content and actions in SL. LL has not got the resources to monitor everything that goes on the same way as your ISP has not got the resources to monitor all internet traffic of its subscribers. LL is an ISP.

Freedom of expression is irrelevant here. SL is a product owned by a company who have the right to restrict expression as much as they wish.

Maybe should have rephrased that some. I am talking anyone. I mean I have read some pretty far out profiles in my few weeks here and I do not do anything related with sex here. Personally I give a rats arse what people get up to together. But when they advertise it to the world and then wonder why people then look at them. Well that is something different. 2nd this could fit in an argument about anything from Panther tanks to what sort of snow makes the best eskimo igloo. if you are not interested in some way for or against then why go through the effort of defending or attacking something? And I think the more passionate the defender the more one has at stake in what they are defen ding.

Pardon me but as I recall you did say age play did not result in such action when they was issues 1 year ago. Now your say this. Really are you a social worker? As a person that has studied soical Environment behavior in Grad levels, I can`t see why you would say that then and this now.

Usagi I am not sure what you mean. Yes I am a real live social worker.

Not necessarily. October's argument has been a technical one about the laws in question.

Well here lets hope LLABS get thier resources asses in gear and starts dealing with it. If LLABS wants Population level of 10,000,000 users then support them with more human resources.




you missed my point here........Freedom or EXPRESSION for those that DON`T AGE SEX PLAY...Not the other wat around......is what is sad. people that just want to be young is ok, but there are limits......... starnge little fact here there is a group in the mentors that are 6 years old and promoting age play. Now tell me how screwed up is llabs WITH ALLOWING AND SUPPORTING SUCH GROUPS.

BLUE LINDEN START LOOKING IN YOUR MENTORS THEIR ARE AGE PLAYERS IN YOU LITTLE GROUP!

Soon we forget what we supported? Gesh..........never mind if you can`t remeber wahts the sence.

the 1st amendment still does not allow one to yell Fire! during a packed showing of Spiderman 3.

Such an act has resulted in real harm being done.

Don't leave me in suspense.

The wikipedia article? See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act?limit=500&action=history

Wasn't the COPA portion of that act defeated in court as recently as March 22 2007?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-porn23mar23,1,3499826.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true

"perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if 1st Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

Maybe Strife is crabby, sleep typing etc as some people might say about him. But atleast he knews what he talking about and resources. I can`t say any bad about him about closing threads etc. If someone can do half the work this guy do on the forums they would never beable to do it!

No I am not a Strife Rah Rah fan.

Thank You

By this logic, as I mentioned before, I am currently a black, white, Native American, Asian, gay, straight, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, paedophilic (using some definitions here, not my own), BDSM-loving, Gorean, Vanilla, Furry, normal, abnormal, male, female, Democratic, Republican, warmongering, peaceloving, animal human, as I defend the rights of all those where I can.
Needless to say, I'm some of those, but not all.

To accuse, even through this sideways means, someone of partaking in the act that they defend is just vile. It's also ridiculous, but with this subject, especially when most of the "defenders" have already spoken out against ACTUAL child pornography and child abuse, it's especially horrible and insidious.

As I've stated: I have no real opinion of the sexual ageplay issue. I am neither for nor against it. I am however very much for consenting adults being afforded the liberty to do as they wish so long as they do not harm or harrass others. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Let me ask a question here......


Can we agree that an avatar in Second Life is not a real child?

If so then can we agree that no actual children are involved in any kind of ageplay in SL (going by the assumption that the people playing the avatars are adults, as per SL t.o.s.)?

If so then no actual children are being harmed. In that case what is the problem? (Please try to be more objective that "it's wrong"/"it's sick"/etc...)

For the record, Slander is spoken. Libel is written.



And woot. I was right.

still don`t get it do you? No LLABS does not see it your way because of that interview and the photos that were shows indeed suggest that it is a form of sexual misconduct.



Again No, why are people so quick to protect actions of these types?


Did you see the photos being pasted in the LLABS data base? what do you want to happen? A child to be killed after a one of these sick rl people meets a underage child ( and yes we really have many on sl here ? Will this fianlly make people think there is a relation between child porn sex on sl and those that RP.

Philip has always been fond of comparing SL to a country. Well, what kind of country are we making? While what I quoted above sounds reasonable on the face of it, it's actually completely contrary to the principles the US was founded on - to protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority. There is no right not to be offended. This isn't about ageplay, or aniti-semitism, or nazi iconography. Those are just flashpoints along the road to where we are now, and though I have no love for ageplayers, I think it's a very sad day in the history of our feldging virtual country. We have now begun to outright ban the offending of the majority. Criminalizing something in which no harm comes to anyone based on what they might do in the future is not only irrational, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

In a somewhat related story I read today in the Washington Post that movies that depict smoking will now receive higher MPAA ratings. I'm offended by the assumption that people can't express taboo thoughts, or be exposed to the representation of things that might be harmful, without having the self control to do the right thing when it counts. I personally find that kind of reasoning, and the inevitable restrictions of civil rights and speech that come with it, more offensive than two adults who I don't know from Adam playing out a devient and shocking fantasy under mutual consent.

The idea of prevention is the snake oil of people with agendas - we can prevent terrorism and it will only cost you your privacy. We can prevent child abuse and it will only cost you your freedom of expression. And in all cases, no, they can't stop it, but freedoms once traded for false promises of security and prevention, are much more difficult to reclaim than to trade away. This is about so much more than ageplay.

Exactly.