Well, I guess Ageplay is now Officially banned

Because I'm a problem solver?

You have a point. And I agree with you.

In case you didn't see it, I was defending your stance here to a point, Cheyenne. And Zod knows you've posted enough about what you think about it enough already here.

That is your opinion and that is fine. We are all entitled to our opinions.

I however, as a responsible adult, impose a limit as to what I will support and tolerate from adults even in the name of liberty. This is an area where I draw a line. I don't care if your 1000 years old. Anything that depicts innocent of children as sexual beings in which they are being victimised, abused and exploited is sick behavior and should not be condoned or supported. Not even in the name of liberty.

Wow...once more, SL proves to be Hypocrite Central.

This type of knee-jerk reaction is exactly what we don't need- banning age play does what exactly against REAL abuse of children anywhere? Probably about the same effect as banning violent computer games does against people running amok and killing others. My avatar is only 1,60m, like my rl self-so I look like a kid next to almost everyone! OMG!
I probably should, under no circumstances, have virtual sex with anyone then, or German TV will turn up and film me.



'

Sorry October .......

I think i didnt make myself very clear ...

in US child pornography IS illegal.

However

Age play is NOT .. in the US

and it IS down to the indevidual as to what to THEM is morally acceptable not down to others ... as I have emphased rather strongly... I am "personally" against it as I feel the imagry is unsettling ... but as YOU say ... they are consent adults, I have my part of SL and I live my life as I see fit ... so should respect others right.
I dont feel points such as liberty ...... come to play as things like "the right to bare arms" doesnt mean the right to shoot.... same way the right to free speech doesnt mean to do things that are illegal ... and as stated earier ... US law says Age play isnt illegal so I cant comment ... and more importantly I should live by MY morals for me ..... not My Morals for others

And I will continue to respond as long as you continue to find reason to respond to my responses. This is a debate. Debates usually entail back and forth conversation.

Or do you now also dictate how many responses I am allowed to post?

Linden Labs is a US based company with all of it's servers within the US. They are not bound to the laws of any other country just because some of it's users are from outside the US. It's like with internet gambling. It's illegal in the US. But US authorities can't prosecute companies outside of the US who run these services, no matter if these sites can be accessed by people in the US. The only thing the US can do is prohibit it's residents from accessing such sites and then prosecuting the ones that do.

But they're not innocent children, they're goddamn pixles being controled by adult people.

Anything that depicts innocent children as sexual beings in which they are being victimised, abused and exploited is sick behavior and should not be condoned or supported.

After watching the video (provided in this thread because apparently we need a half dozen threads on the same subject) I see the 'virtual children' indeed look exceptionally young. There's quite a difference from just being a short avatar.

Of course, as someone mentioned a few posts up, if someone really has an agenda they could get you banned anyway if there are no clarifications made.

And I can't pass this up... As an artist inspired by the anime/manga styles and a fan of lolita fashion I feel I must point out that making sweeping statements about 'anime and lolita artists' is exceptionally unwise. Not all anime/manga artists draw porn (it's a niche market just as it is in the US) and women who wear lolita fashion are not ageplaying (something typically frowned upon by followers of the fashion). Let's try not to be any more xenophobic than we already are. *___* (And I'll also try to stay on topic after this)

The key word here being children. The pixles on your screen are not children, they are pixles. Nothing more. They do not exist in any real, tangible form. If you turn off the server they are hosted on they cease to exist at all.

Ayup. No argument with you here. Children being victimized in any manner is absolutely wrong. Bad. Truly opportunistic and exploiting scumbags who should be punishable by laws created by the enlightened attitudes of a civilized culture. The people who were passing child porn should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

However, in a fantasy scene between two consenting adults, there are no children involved. They're <i>roleplaying adults</i>. Like when a husband asks a wife to dress up like a high school cheerleader (know how many of my straight male friends do that scene?). Or when I'm feeling in a bit of a demanding leather mood and go boss around a kajirus in Gor-land. Or when one of my consenting-aged furry friends likes to do a little puppy play.

Twisted and kinky? Totally. Illegal and exploiting anybody when done in a private scenario between consenting adults? Not as far as any law I've ever seen on the books. Except, perhaps, in a few of the red states in the US and some Middle Eastern countries but that's another argument for another time.

Got any other groups or any other activities you'd like to add to your "things to be condemned in Cheyenne's world" list?

A country can, subject to its own laws, ban international companies from providing illegal services. A country can, certainly, prosecute its own residents or visitors who violate its laws within the boundaries of that country. If country A decides that it is illegal to have cyber sex with female [or male or furry for that matter] Avatars they can ban the service provider from doing business intheir jurisdiction and they can prosecute those within their borders who indulge in that practice. It does not matter whether this is "right" or "wrong." its a simple fact.

So that's what happened to my inventory...

and opinions like this are why we have free speech.

I am not an ageplayer, but this is the frontline in the defense of free speech. Alot of people have paid a very steep price for the right for these ageplayers do come one here and do things that offened others. Just like a lot of people have paid a very steep price for me to have the freedom to be an athiest or to burn an american flag, or a mexican flag, or to suggest that historically speaking german concepts of freedom of speech and religion have been less than the highest: ask any jewish holocuast survivor.

So I am offended by several things:
I am offended by the slow cutrailing of liberties in order to develop PR opportunities to pay lipservice to the "moral majority."

I am offended by anyone who does not get that the first amendment is a reflection of a universal civil right and is fundamental to the notion of freedom. essential to this right is key concept that at time we will here things that are offensive to us, and the answer is not to ban these things, but to buck up and take it.

The US has very defined interpretations of what types of speech can be curtailed, and the depiction child like computer images, engaged in sexual activity does not rise to the level of prohibited speech.

I am offended that my american civil liberties are compromised by the german media, who may or may not have trumped this whole thing up, via machimation to get ratings.

I am offended that LL would not simply tell us ageplay is banned, so that we could know what our expectations of privacy are. If they intend to ban all sexual activity, I wish they would do it now, so I donlt waste more of my life investing in this community.

Finally the depiction of sexual activity, real or simulated, involving an actual child is reprehensilbe.

What is not particularly offensive is any thing that happens between an 50 something man and a 20 something woman in the privacy of thier own virtual home.

So then a prosecuter in Jerkwater, Iowa can charge an internet gambling company in the United Kingdom? I don't think so.

But yeah, a country can ban that company from providing it's services in their jurisdiction.

Ketter, really, have your read any of these responses at all. Because it would save them from being repeated over and over.

I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with two adults, in adult form, dressing up and playing costume. The difference here is the depiction of one being an adult and the other a child. Not an adult dressed as a child, but a child. There's a difference you know.

Promise me you wont bring this up again, please.

Interesting point. Was LL set-up?

So a pixelated child av is now a child even though said av is being manipulated on the other side of the computer by an adult?

I know it makes it much easier to make vicious accusations against opponents rather than go to the trouble of arguing with them, but your insinuation is not only a mindless slur; it is an apparent attempt to short-circuit debate on an extremely important matter. You really need to be ashamed of yourself for your cheap shot.

Essentially everyone concerned with such blanket bans are concerned about instituting the principle of thought crimes in SL. They do not always express it that way, but that is what is underlying their concerns.

Molesting children is a crime. Placing RL children in sexually compromising positions is a crime, and photographs or videos of RL children in those situations are evidence of crimes, and the adults involved should be prosecuted and are whenever possible. Good. The penalties under German law described here do not strike me as severe enough.

If there were an actual RL child involved in one of these adult-child sex scenes, that too would obviously be a crime. It should be prosecuted, and if such a thing ever does actually happen, I hope it is. But that is not what is happening.

Feeling sexually attracted to children is a sickness, and a serious one. Such people should seek professional help. But it is not a crime. Thoughts are not crimes. Not even sick thoughts. There have been countries where certain thoughts have been considered crimes, and quite literally, tens of millions of people have died often terrible deaths as a result of that. There are still some countries where that is happening. The principle that X thought is a crime and those who think it or might be thinking it should be persecuted was arguably the greatest single curse visited on the entire 20th Century, and here it is being introduced again, under the guise of opposing child molesters in SL. Apply it in even one case, even one so inherently heinous as this, and you open the floodgates for every crank or nut case with an agenda to try to start a stampede to apply it to persecute people they are against.

We have already seen this played out in an earlier "ageplay" uproar. I am not imagining this; it happened at a Linden-sponsored open meeting. Even before the matter was decided, or even fully discussed, already there were voices wanting to apply the proposed "ban" beyond ageplay. To (consenting) rape RP. To Goreans. To furries. To the BDSM scene as a whole. It did not have time to get much further, but surely it would soon have been extended to gays. Perhaps later, to "miscegenation" (remember that?). To prostitution. To nudity. And how long does anyone suppose it would then take for religious and political nuts to start trying to impose their agendas too? Couple of heartbeats, is my guess.

Now we have to deal with the problem that it is possible, with the cooperation of a consenting adult, to express that fantasy visually in SL. It is a troubling problem. Advertising or promoting such "services" or acting out such fantasies in "public" places in SL has been banned. Considering the extreme revulsion people, myself included, feel on seeing these portrayals (I checked out the German broadcast shown on Youtube), such a ban is a good thing. Not only kids might see it, but adults too.

But out of sight? Care taken to keep it that way? Now we are going after a thought crime. THAT is the problem.

Gosh people, read.

1) You accuse me of wanting to limit what you have to say here (which I haven't, I was just pointing out the number of quotes you've made) and then you write that last line?

*chuckle*

I think that's a "don't do as I do, do as I say" thing. I call a red flag penalty on the debate field. That, or it reminded me too much of my father talking.

2) It's not real sex, Cheyenne. It's pixels being pushed by adults.

I'm not arguing the exploitation of children on any level. I'm arguing about the line between what's real and what's not. Some people in this "game" seem to have differing concepts of that here.

Never heard of David Carruthers of BetOnSports? Look him up!

The issue here is not a moral one and not about freedom of expression, but about the distribution of what is considered child pornography.

In certain countries the depiction of a child engaged in sexual activity in any format (photo, drawing, cartoon, etc...) is illegal. If I am not mistaken this is the case in Canada and it will soon be legislated in the UK (if it hasn't already).

Sexual ageplay in Second Life depicts children engaged in sexual activity, even if those involved are adults. If they were acting out their fantasies using adult-looking AVs then they would not be producing child porn.

LL is effectively an ISP operating globally. They have to respect whatever local laws are in place. In most cases responsibility for content lies with the user and not LL, but LL are required to act promptly when there is a violation.

You are saying that the depiction is the sickness, even if both are consenting adults.