Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

You are making an assumption here...

That is NOT the case being discussed.

The actual case being discussed is depictions of children having sex in SL. THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN "ADULT" AVATAR PRESENT.

I have mentioned this in the past.

Two under aged avatars in depicted sex, are considered JUST as pornographic as any other depiction.

Interesting point here. Not sure what the laws on bestiality are, but if you put on some kitty ears they may come into play.

Laws need to be updated to take into account the meta-world context so that everyone is 100% clear about what they can or can't do.

Ultimately it's up to the user to resepct the laws of the country they live in, as well as LL's own policies.

LL find itself in a situation where their service is available in different jurisdictions. If they want to operate in Germany they need to respect laws there.

The same applies to Google, Yahoo, MSN, eBay, etc...

In France, for example, Yahoo! got in trouble for making available for sale nazi memorabilia. Following this Amazon stopped selling Hitler's Mein Kampf there.

This can only be intepreted as ageplay involving child-like AVs as there are no other instances of 'minors' in SL given real minors are not allowed in.

Yawn***
1. Yes I have agreed to the fact that an avatar can be any age.
2. Yes, I see that it is relevant... but I dont see your point?

I am not forced to agree withanything you say there. Im sorry. I STILL believe that depicted sex with a child is wrong. Im sorry that Im sticking to my guns on this one... but I just CANNOT agree that sex with a child is ok. and yes...before you go yawning down that highway again. I also dont care about all the technicalities regarding the whole thing. Let me make my point even clearer than it already is...

1. If you are in Second life to simulate having sex with a child, then you should be banned and the Authorities should be notified. Not anything about 200yo gorks from the planet flathilkisom... Im talking if you have come to Second life with absolute INTENT to have sex with, or participate in sex with a child AV. Is that clear enough?

2. If you are unsure about whether or not what you are doing is sex with a child... try looking at #1 first of all. If that doesnt clear it up. as someone else here suggested... do it, take pictures of it..and take it to your local police station and ask them what they think. If you end up in jail...chances are you were doing the wrong thing.

Its common sense people. If you were at a brothel or whatever, that specialises in sex with children...and you are caught having sex with a child AV.. (or a 200yo immortal being from the depths of lake shittykaka)...chances are that you are not there to check the wallpaper. All you have to do is look at yourself. If when you look in the mirror, you have to justify having sex with children... then I would suggest you are doing the wrong thing. If you look in the mirror and say "well I went out looking for a 7million year old alien who just happens to look like a little 6 yeasr old boy... who talks like a 6 year old boy and dresses like a 6 year old boy..." then I have this to say..

Pull your F*&%^$NG head in... and realise that you have a problem and go seek professional help. Oh but before you do... make sure to pack your bag from Secondlife...because this is not the place for you.

Alice.

I like how these people were banned from SL with there accounts getting deleted before they were even able to defend themselves, The German reports say they resembled a adult and a child, what if it was a child and a little person such as a person who has a growth disability and just looks like a child? I think that the accounts should have been suspended until these people had time to defend themselves.

Indeed... we have cyber beings... robots... furries... vampires...

The list goes on FOREVER.

Are Linden Labs or the legal systems of nations going to have to discern if the avatar is created to be a non-human entity?

For child porn to be child porn... it has to depict a child.

And if the creator of the avatar says that they are NOT human..... Then it's done.


This makes the entire issue simple to sidestep in the most trivial ways.

And if triviality is the difference between a crime and no crime... then where are we? As another poster has provided, German law means JAIL TIME for child pornography.

Can you hear the courts deciding the case? "We find that your supposed "furry" avatar was in fact more human than animal, and therefore we classify your avatar as human. The court further finds that the actuall apparant age of your avatar is 17.5 years old. The court therefore finds you guilty as being the producer of child pornography."


Of course, this is INSANE, yet this is in fact where this all leads.

And not a single victim in sight... and another victimless crime, where we, as a society, believe it is perfectly fine to, with force of the state, relieve persons of their wealth (fines), and to take from them their basic freedoms (jail time), because their avatar appeared too "youthful".

Unfreakingbelieveable.

I disagree that its the "ONLY intreptations"- The Linden's know there are minors in second life - they already have a Guilty until innocent policy towards it. Theyve also been repitively accused of not doing age verification. Why would they have told us the ages of the two individuals banned if one of the obvious questions wasnt "was one a RL minor?"

However you make a good point and thats is probably where Robin was coming from. Although with Age verification included in the blog post I think it was even more imperitive to be clear.


-------------------

If it is banned - why are we having this debate?

Trying to change their minds?

When did that ever happen reguarding Policy?

It's up to the court of laws to decide if any depiction is illegal or not, no matter what the person creating the depiction says.

There will always be borderline cases. But what's the alternative? Not to have those laws?

Emotions cloud the vision, they see two child av's or a child av, kneejerk overemotional response. Not considering, or really caring about the very REAL damage being done by themselves. It's an extremely common occurence in RL. Whip up the populous on emotionalism, then you can do anything you want to them and they'll applaud wildly.

I've been accused several times of not knowing the difference between SL and RL. *I* however don't see child av's, or dragon av's...*I* see real people doing what they want. If I find it offensive, then I leave...out the door, never to return to that area.

The funny thing, to some extent I agree. If you're thinking it, you probably do have issues. But until someone's being harmed, NOT MY BUSINESS. I apply that all over. Hell, I think you have issues if you participate in rape RP's...however, NOT MY BUSINESS unless I have evidence that you are committing such a crime in RL. People get the idea that if *they* think it's wrong it must be stopped.

I'm sorry, I don't argue for ageplay because I do it, or even approve of it. I argue because if I did not I would be a hypocrite. I say "If you are not harming someone it's none of my business". I can't change my standard on something like that because of some emotionally driven response without changing the intrinsic part of me that beleives in truth. If I believe it's ok to shoot someone in SL, then I *have* to agree it's ok to ageplay in SL. Because no matter how you look at it, the same logic applies.

Because we can try to discern if the policy is destined to be temporary or not.

If LL has placed themselves in an impossible situation where they have to make determinations that can not be made.... then we can be reasonably certain that the policy will vanish or substantially change.

(Example: if the avatar has kitty ears on it's head... then will LL decline to become involved as the avatar is not "human"?)

Wherever LL has placed itself into the position of being the keeper of morality in SL, we have seen that fail, and policy change as a result.

They don't seem to learn their lesson in this regard, however.

I predict that they will NOT be banning more accounts for this in the not to distant future, and waiting for the courts to decide first.

But there is only one way to find out. Use the new policy.


My suggestion for ALL USERS that care about this issue is: when you think an avatar looks too young -
Take photographs of the avatar sex you find, then send them in as an abuse report, including the screen capture, and your assertion that one or more of the avatars in the photo looks "too young" to you.

This is now official linden policy. So let's get cracking and put it to use.

We can end child pornography in SL if we all chip in, and start sending in those abuse reports!

And no, I am not joking.

The Lindens say this is a serious situation, and something that they take seriously. So, we need to respond in kind.

I am going to start hanging around places where public sex occurrs, and if I see what appears to me to be an avatar under 18 years of age... the report gets filed.

WARNING: if your avatar looks 17 years old to me (or younger), I WILL be filing an abuse report on YOU if you are engaged in anything that looks like sexual activity, REGARDLESS of where you are on grid, including your own land.

Best of luck to you all.

That's because we have different definitions of paedophilia. Yours is incorrect.
By your definition. In your opinion.[/QUOTE] And they are hardly innocent little flowers. Are you defending sexual ageplayers because they have not been caught in the act collectiong and trading actual child pornography? Are you defending sexual ageplayers because since SL is supposed to be 18+ we're assuming their are no underage people involved? Are you defending sexual ageplayers because it's a computer generated cartoon of a child it's NOT pedophilia?[/QUOTE]
I've made my point several times. Over and over. I've clearly stated my views. How did you miss them?

What? "Did you stay at a Holiday Inn?" Are there meds you should be taking? What the hell does that mean.
I KNOW it was taken out of context because I actually read the whole thing and his quote was taken out of context. I don't need to be a lawyer to see when someone takes "Every car I saw today was read" and tries to rewrite it as "Every car is red today".

But you keep on taking potshots, sweetie. That's a surefire way yo get your postcount up.

What kills me about you is that you snipsnip all these different posts, poking where you can, then, when someone calls you on it, denounce them for not talking about the whole post. What's the word again? Oh, yeah. Hypocrite.

I'm done with this thread (with the caveat that I will respond to anything directed specifically to me), as it's now gone in circles, like, 4 times.



Me, I am just sick of the "THEY'RE ALL PAEDOPHILES AND SHOULD BE SHOT!" ignorance and lies and misinformation. Wasting my time, I know, but I think it's important.





Alazarin, good post, sir.

Like any other online offering that features mature content LL rely on people not lieing about their age and respecting the TOS. I think it's unfair that LL are accused of not doing enough about minors on the main grid. There are plenty of sites where mature content is available even more easily. Will YouTube require age verification at any stage?

The could be more clear about their policies, I agree, but shouldn't it be enough to say 'hey, this is what the law says.. respect that'. The problem is, of course, that LL spans different countries and different laws apply.

Personally speaking, I don't want to see a whole bunch of LL rules and regulations about issues such as this one but a better and quicker abuse report and resolution system.

Ah .. okay ..

good luck with that.

Right, but the main issue is that LINDEN LABS says that they will BAN YOU FOREVER, INSTANTLY, if THEY determine it. NOT THE COURTS.

You read the blog, yes?

That was my next question.

What are the laws on depictions of bestiality? Is it illegal to show pictures of someone buggering a sheep?

Anyone care to find the links for us?

I find the protections people have on their accoutns in Secondlife pretty sad,

Not specifically related to this issue - but in general.

Its far too easy to get banned. Its far to easy for someone else to get me investigated.

People are so scared of griefers they forget when they want quicker bannings - they make it easier for them to get banned.

People are so judgmental of some activities - they forget that all this intrusion makes it easier for them to get banned.

That does not really help, because it is just as possible to have sex with cyber-droids or unicorns or any other fictional entity... where bestiality simply does not apply...

Besides *depictions* of bestiality are not illegal anywhere on the planet, afaik. And that is what we are talking about.... depictions.

My feeling is quite the contrary, that LL are completely hands-off.

They need to strike a balance between the user's interest, their own commercial interests and legislation.

It's more complicated than that. If it's being marketed and presented as young adults, even teens (since 18 is a teen), then yes, in the US.

But if it's being done in such a way as to present the individual as a child, with props, clothing, dialog or captions, etc., so as to fool people into believing it to be underage, then it's illegal (or possibly was but has been overturned). The premise behind child pornography laws is that actual children are being harmed, and pictures that give the impression of actual children (whether or not that's true) support the child pornography industry, and hence can be banned. Cartoons (which is the best way I can describe SL) provide no expectation that children are involved, and are considered by at least one court decision to be sufficiently far removed from the kiddie porn industry, so that they do not come under the heading of child pornography.

They can, however, come under the heading of illegal obscenity, which if I recall correctly, is a less serious offense, harder to prove (because of subjectivity), and with some other conditions involved. Because of the transient nature of SL images, it's not at all clear to me whether anything in SL could be considered illegal obscenity unless someone actually saves snapshots or other screen captures.

If it's not obvious, this all refers to US law only.

Usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so don't blame me if you wind up in jail because of this. My motive in posting this is purely to illustrate how some simple issues can become really complicated from a legal perspective. Ninety per cent of the poor arguments in these threads, on both sides, come about because people throw away the details, over simplifying to the points that support their side, just like compressing a full color image into black and white. Looks the same, but black and white isn't reality.

Yes, and the Terms of Service.

LL have the right to ban you forever and instantly for any reason they wish. Or no reason at all.

Seems that some folks don't care if the baby is thrown out with the bathwater while other people are content to let the baby stay in there while it stagnates.

But all this hyperbole and pontification does is render the arguments worthless on both sides. A lot of people could do with swapping their aggression and snarkiness for rationality and manners.

when did they ever do this?

I can think of no examples.

That is EXACTLY my point. In the beginning, they were NOT. They placed themselves as the impossible gate keepers of morality.

They *changed* to hands off because the failed to see the dimensions of the task they laid before them. They were going to enforce bumps, and "intolerance" and basically political corectness across the grid. They changed. They became hands off, as your experience says.

Now: They are BACK to saying that they are "hands on" when it comes to reports of child porn. If your avatar, or the avatar you are with looks too young to a German reporter... poof, you are GONE.

Actually, there are quite a number of realistic looking animal avatars in SL. I'm working on some as we speak, actually, and we will be releasing the first set, Big Cats, in the very near future. I wasn't asking about fictional entities. I was talking about bestiality.
This is why I ask, as I'm pretty certain that within a few hours of the first AV being bought, there will be one of them on a poseball somewhere, doing the nasty. Possibly minutes.

I'm just curious if depictions of having sex with an animal are illegal and whether or not people will eventually be banned for simulating sex with animals. As someone who has a vested interest in this, I think it's important.