Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

While the fledgling virtual country is a grand idea in theory, in practice it is still located in real countries, with real laws, and real prisons. I don't know about you, but prison makes me itchy. So unless Phil drops some money to buy an island (oh, I kill me), he and everybody else in SL will have to get over it.



And going with the virtual country thing, do you want to live in a country where sex with children is legal?

I am sorry Hahahahahah


Yes Philip Linden Has said this, but please don`t fit in the wrong content.


Chip Midnight is not only one of the most repected and Knowing people about how SL functions. So don`t hang on his thought to support your issues.

Well by looking at Octobers comments it should. Look at all his double talking....

Ah, so if we end pretend child pornography we therefore end real child pornography? If that's really how it works I'll jump on that train....

Yeah, you might want to investigate that. One must realize that most of these sickos probably have met real life children...SL has nothing to do with it. This is a knee jerk reaction, there is actually no proof that all people who engage in this practice in SL do it in RL. There is also absolutely no proof that SL is in any way related to real child porn. YOu seem to think that SL is the "gateway drug" for child porn. And that the people in SL just haven't ever run into a child. Sadly that's not the case. Many child pornographers are family members..and their victims are neices, nephews, little cousins. SL isn't a child porn "gateway drug". These aren't people who've never met a child. You should read up on this to have a good arguement. If you can provide facts that pretend sex with pretend children has caused real harm, I'll back you every step of the way. But until then, adults are adults, not children. We may not like their activities, but that just means we have to stay away from them. None of us have the right to not be offended. If we did, I might leave my house more.

And do you really really want to open the box of worms that suggests that the thought equals the deed? Because we're all going down down down. Why yesterday I fantasized about wrapping my fingers around this woman's neck. And in SL I actually killed someone with a sword. Wow...I'm a murderer looking for a killing spree!

thanks for the endorsement (I try not to sleep type, i get wordy when I'm tired).

I really try to be factually accurate, with google (and wikipedia) it's an easy thing to do (it annoys me that other people aren't this way). Anyway, I enjoy reading laws and about laws. While COPA may have been blocked, CIPA hasn't and then there is the upcoming DOPA. The battle between protection and free speech will continue far into the future.

Didn't mean to be taken as snotty when I posted that link to the page history, just was too much work to look at all the changes and write up report on it (it would be mighty dull and not a good use of anyones time).

----
EDIT:
I agree with Chip.

What Chip says is to true.

Right... except that is not the case.

LL specifically said that adults were immediately banned because their avatars were "engaged in depicted sexual conduct".

NOT RL photographs.

In other words, LL is interested in what adults do with their avatars in their own avatar bedrooms.... which is supposed to be the pervue of radical right wing republicans, yes?

Read it again:

"On Thursday May 3, we were contacted by German television network, ARD, which had captured images of two avatars, one that resembled an adult male and another that resembled a child, engaged in depicted sexual conduct. Our investigations revealed the users behind these avatars to be a 54-year-old man and a 27-year-old woman. Both were immediately banned from Second Life."

LL ****ALSO**** bans picture uploads of child porn... but that is not being debated.

If anything..... it seems to me that the German tv network is guilty of invading the privacy of adults, and taking pictures to boot.

Since this is all about analogies to the real world, lets try this. Suppose, in rl, my girlfriend dresses like a school girl, and I dress like a teacher, and we have a sex roleplay fantasy in our own bedroom.

Would you be willing to say to me that a German TV network could and should take pictures of it without our permission, and then show them around in order to cause trouble for us?

Do you really think that news organizations should be taking pictures of any kind in the private activities of adults?

Is this the kind of thing you want news crews to do in rl?

If not... then why treat SL any differently?

Nobody has yet to show me any victim in the avatar sex depiction...

And what this means, is that the first victims were the two people that were banned.

No. I want to live in a country where people can distinguish between the depiction of something and the actual thing that's depicted. I happen to think freedom of speech and expression is a pretty good idea, and worth protecting, even if it means protecting the expression of things I might personally find offensive. I'm sure we all find canibalism revolting and wrong. Shall we ban zombie avatars next?

I'm worried. What else will be taken away. This could be just the start.

pretend children...he never said real children...he is against sex with real children.
Most of us are. What real children are we protecting here by telling adults how they are allowed to behave in private? You want to protect real children...please do! They aren't protected enough from REAL criminals.

You argue through emotional appeal. Anything based purely on emotions is useless. When emotions are on the table, the table collapses from the weight. Logic and facts are very important as a base. They are stable, never changing, never shifting. You build an arguement from that.

Emotionally? You want an emotion based arguement, fine...but don't be surprised when it falls from under you. We could all argue emotionally, and then 99% of us would agree. Emotionally it's WRONG.

Logically? Ehh.not so sure..but before I give away an adult's freedom to think, I want it based on more of an arguement then "If you don't agree with me you don't love da children"

Not wishing to speak for anyone else here, but I will agree 100% that an avatar in Secondlife is not a real child.



Again I will agree with the statement that no ACTUAL children are involved in any kind of ageplay..going by the assumption made in your statement/question



It is a fair point to make that "no actual children are being harmed" but that is not to say that the people are fantasising about having sexual relations with children are not putting "actual children" at risk. It is NOT a coincidence that most sexual predators in regards to crimes against children have been found to have child pornography on their computers or video's / magazines in their possession. Some predators never make it past the "just looking" stage... many take it one step further and hang around areas where they can view actual children being naked...and many move on to attempt to harm or attempt physical contact with children. Some will argue that in acting out their fantasies in "ageplay" or "simulated sex with children" (ie what has happened in secondlife) actually relieves their built up "longing" others will tell you flat out that it only works them up more.
The other problem with what has happened is that it IS flat out against the law. The DEPICTION of child sex is illegal, whether it be a cartoon drawing, painting or on a platform like secondlife.

Child porn... in ALL its forms is illeagal and there are reasons for that... this is why it is causing such huge heated debate. There is NO place for it in any society...and it should be flushed out, exposed and the perpetrators of it should be charged and disciplined to the full extent of the law. Its NOT ok in your own bedroom, its NOT ok in a skybox, its NOT ok in the local park...this issue should be dealt with with ZERO tolerance. No excuses...no ifs or buts.

and I hate to say it... but its SICK and WRONG!!!!

Alice

Now THIS is a good arguement, IMO.

I'm sorry... I think you lost me. Are you talking about homosexuality here?

That's quite incorrect. In 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a ban on virtual child porn in a 6 to 3 ruling, declaring the ban violated the first amendment.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

From what I can tell that's still debatable. One user posts one like that seems to say one thing, another user posts a link that seems to contradict it. The problem is we have a bunch of people who are not lawyers trying to interpret the law.



No one's debating the legallity/illegality of child pornography. What is debatable is the claim that an avatar on SL equates to child pornography. I believe that it does not base on not only the fact that an avatar is not a real person, and based on the inherant ambiguities of what an avatar could be (for example the hobbit/small adult example I've mention more than once).



Can you make an arguement without falling back on emotion?

[insert your dangerous media choice]

*Messed up and quoted myself while trying to edit previous post*

I would like to see that in writing! can you point me to a link referring to your point please?
Also.. if thats not possible, could anyone point me to the part of the first amendment that mentions "virtual child porn"?




And to put the cart before the horse, if the supreme court did make such a desicion, I would like to have a look at the computers of those who voted against it.

Why is it people contimue to protect those that did the ageplay role sex?
**************Missing the point on purpose I see***********************



Again hidding behind words and laws.....please you by passing the point again



No thats your own thoughts not mine .......next




No again your putting words in my mouth.........sorry but twisting words and issues stil doent not mean anything.




Well this should be ask of you . where is the logic to this issue? all you did was point out take out parts of issue and twist them in your ways............

I don`t know about you but i have a 1 year 8 month child. As a parent I understand worries one might have. So i don`t understand this statement your trying to take here...... I don`t RP issues like this as some are doing here. I take its serious.....

A link to a CNN article is in my post.

Yeah, but it IS logical...and well, based on the facts we have.

Also, is written (literary) child pornography illegal?

I remembered that also, which is probably why our esteemed congress did an end-run around that ruling in 18 U.S.C. 71 § 1466A (probably attached to a farm bill) in 2003. This law is so "necessary and proper" that it has resulted in one conviction since its enactment.

Sort of like the flag burning folderol, except that it is politically much harder to defend free expression in this context. Thanks for carrying the torch for the First Amendment, but in today's clime you might as well be debating abortion.

THis is what I have found in regards to this point...
In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under both federal and state laws with some state laws including more or less restrictive definitions compared with federal law. Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 1 engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals.

In some court cases, the so-called "Dost factors" have been used to judge whether an image is child pornography. These are a list of six considerations originating in a 1986 court case, "United States vs. Dost". The six standards are:

whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genital, pubic or anal areas
whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child
whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Please note...child pornography is defined as visual DEPICTION of minors (i.e. under 1 engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals.






Again,,, I point you to the DEPICTION of minors. Not the "photographs" not the "videos" it only has to be Depicted.


I CAN... but chose not to. I believe that emotion is an important part of this topic. Sure...there are probably many loopholes and technecalities that a robot with no emotion could point out in regards to this debate...but we arent robots...we are human. And humans use emotion...particularly in regards to things they have passion about.

I have 4 children. I am a mom, however I don't let that blind me to facts. I'm sorry, but being a mom who looks at facts doesn't make me a bad one, it just makes me smart. Emotions blind you, Facts set you free. Quite frankly, as you don't speak English very well, it seems you have completely misunderstood everything I've said. I protect freedom of THOUGHT. I do not in any way believe the thought equates action. I'm sorry, but logic and facts are how you have a real discussion. By arguing simply through emotional appeal, it usually means you have no facts to present. I twisted nothing. You do argue from emotional appeal. However,

fact: No real children were involved.
Fact: Pictures of pretend children do not hurt real children.
FAct: I know of no real children that even knew of the pretend ones.
Fact: Thought does not equate deed.
Fact: Two consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever behavior they wish, as long as it harms noone, whether or not I approve of it.
Fact: I do not force others to live by my morals (no matter how right I know they are), as long as noone is being hurt.

Opinion: A busybody on a cause is a danger to the public.